Amanda Lashner’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, including business and shareholder disputes, and claims alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Amanda has worked on multiple successful motions to dismiss federal securities claims, appellate briefs, and other dispositive motions. Amanda has experience drafting complaints, interviewing witnesses, defending depositions, negotiating settlements, and working with overseas counsel on complicated foreign legal issues. Amanda has also participated in a successful mediation.
In Feuer v. Merck & Co. (N.J. 2019) The New Jersey Supreme Court interpreted for the first time the scope of the New Jersey Books and Records Act, holding that the statute did not provide shareholders the broad scope of access sought by the plaintiff in anticipation of a possible derivative action. We had previously obtained dismissal of the shareholder’s complaint in the Chancery Division and then obtained a favorable published opinion from the New Jersey Appellate Division.
In MICROS Systems (Md. Ct. Spec. Appeals 2016, cert. denied Md. Court of Appeals 2017), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the decision by the Circuit Court dismissing a challenge to a merger after the Circuit Court had denied a motion for expedited discovery.
In Doshi and City of Livonia Emps. Ret. Sys. v. General Cable Corp. (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws based on two restatements, finding that plaintiff had not adequately pled scienter.
In Amerisourcebergen v. John Doe (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013, reargument denied, appeal to Supreme Ct. denied), the Pennsylvania Superior Court quashed as interlocutory the appeal of John Doe from an order of the Court of Common Pleas permitting the release of his identity since John Doe posted two comments on an online article, falsely using the name of an ABC employee. The Superior Court found that, in light of the fact that Mr. Doe’s comment illegally appropriated the name of another, it was not anonymous or pseudonymous speech protected by the First Amendment.
Motions Granted By Trial Court
In In re Egalet Corporation Securities Litigation, (E.D. Pa. 2018), the district court dismissed a putative class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws for failure to predict how the FDA would act in approving a drug. In a sweeping 58 page opinion, the district court rules in favor of defendants on virtually all issues ranging from the protection afforded by the safe harbor for forward-looking statements to the type of facts necessary to plead that defendants acted with the requisite state of mind. The case was appealed to the Third Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal.
In Doshi v. General Cable Corporation et al. (E. D. Ky 2019), the district court dismissed with prejudice a securities class action arising out of a 2016 non-prosecution agreement between the client and the DOJ for another matter. This is the second time we have obtained the dismissal of a securities class action against this client.
In Hussey v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2017), the district court granted with prejudice a motion to dismiss Section 14 claims finding that plaintiff had abandoned its Section 14(d)(7) claims and failed to state a Section 14(e) claim because scienter is required and was not pled, nor was falsity adequately pled. Media coverage of this decision is linked to this bio.
In Feuer v. Merck (N.J. Super. Ct., Ch. Div. 2016), the New Jersey Superior Court’s Chancery Division adopted Merck’s interpretation of the statute and dismissed a shareholder action claiming entitlement to additional books and records for the purpose of preparing a derivative complaint relating to an acquisition by Merck. The shareholder appealed and that appeal remains pending.
Plumley v. Sempra Energy (S.D. Cal. 2017), the district court dismissed putative class action claims alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising from the natural gas leak at the Alison Canyon natural gas facility. The court examined both pre-leak and post-leak statements and found that plaintiff failed to plead facts showing that the challenged statements were false or that defendants acted with scienter. The court allowed plaintiff 21 days in which to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies that it identified.
In Hays v. Dvorak, (Del. Ch. 2015), the Delaware Chancery Court granted a motion to stay a derivative case because the derivative suit relied on an adverse ruling in a patent trial, which ruling was on appeal. After the Federal Circuit vacated the bulk of the damages awarded in the patent trial, the Chancery Court approved the parties’ stipulation dismissing the case without prejudice.
In two related cases, both entitled Viesti Associates Inc. v. Pearson Education Inc. (D. Colo. 2014), the district court granted summary judgment in Pearson’s favor, finding that plaintiff Viesti Associates, a national stock photo agency, lacked standing to assert copyright infringement claims on behalf of third-party photographers and photography agencies. It specifically found that the copyright assignment documentation Viesti relied upon was legally insufficient to confer standing.
Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, 2007, B.A., Summa Cum Laude
University of Pennsylvania Law School, 2012, J.D.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania