This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Securities
Securities Exchange Act

Brian Barry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Colony Northstar Inc., Richard B. Saltzman, Darren J. Tangen, Neale Redington and David T. Hamamoto

Published: Apr. 24, 2020 | Result Date: Feb. 21, 2020 | Filing Date: Apr. 6, 2018 |

Case number: 2:18-cv-02888 Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Laurence M. Rosen
(The Rosen Law Firm PA)

Lionel Z. Glancy
(Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP)

Robert V. Prongay
(Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP)


Defendant

Matthew W. Close
(O'Melveny & Myers LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Brian Barry filed a class action lawsuit against defendants Colony Northstar Inc., Richard Saltzman, Darren Tangen, Neale Redington, and David Hamamoto, claiming violations of Federal Securities laws under sections 10(b), 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended the class members purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of Colony Northstar, a global real estate and investment management firm, from Feb.28, 2017 throughout March 2018, and defendants artificially inflated prices during the class period, which resulted in plaintiffs being damaged. Plaintiffs contended defendants knew the public statements and documents issued and distributed under the company's name were false when defendants misrepresented material facts about the financial condition and status of the company.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions.

Result

The court dismissed the case with prejudice because the court concluded plaintiffs failed to adequately prove defendants allowed its stocks to trade at artificially inflated levels until it recorded an impaired goodwill in the healthcare and management structures in 2018.


#134522

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390