You're viewing Docket Item 165 from the case Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:11-cv-00733-WHP Document 165 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 2

SKADDEN. ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP


FOUR TIMES SQUARE


NEW YORK 10036-6522

,------:::::::::=:===-----=-~---l
!\lJSDC SONY
.' -
U\1ENT
I ;
'

TEL: (212)7 f-3000
FAX: (212) 73$-2000

f ~,o "r~WW,'~11dTin,COm
L '! rl L-, ~-

ld
II

)

Ii \, U '

j,:'

1 C

F'IRM/AF'F'ILIATE OFFICES

BOSTON
,_~~__.~__• ______' CHICAGO
HOUSTO'"

r:::\LOS ANGELES
t ~ ""J 1 PALO ALTO
lSAN F"RANCISCO
WASHINGTON, D,C

1

WILMINGTON

DIRECT DIAL

212-735-2628

DIRECT FAX

917-777-2628
EMAlL ADDRESS

..[email protected],COM

\\

t!},.D.J.

August 23,2012

~ph'ca"'O"\ ()'f0¥1+ed. Thl's CoY(+­

tA.n'l' ViolJ
Ctfuber 6) ,;LOI~

(l rre h1Dhm ~{e/etlQe...

04­

~. ·00

f' yY\ •

BEI.JING


BRUSSELS

FRANKFURT

HONG KONG


LONDON

MOSCOW
MUNICH

PARIS


SAO PAULO

SHANGHAI
SINGAPORE


SYDNEY

TOKYO


TORONTO

VIENNA

BY HAND DELIVERY

Hon. William H. Pauley III
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 2210
New York, NY 10007

SO ORDERED:
~jtbb...~~~
WILLIAM It PAULEY ill U.~.

Re:

Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System
v. Bank ofAmerica Corporation. et al.. 11 Civ. 733 (WHP)

Dear Judge Pauley:

We represent Defendants Bank of America Corporation ("BAC"),

Kenneth D. Lewis, Joe L. Price, II, Brian T. Moynihan, Charles H. Noski and Neil
Cotty (the "Individual Defendants" and together with BAC, "Defendants") in the
above-referenced action. We respectfully submit, pursuant to Rule IV(A) of Your
Honoris Individual Practices, a courtesy copy of BAC's Reply Memorandum of Law
in Further Support of its Motion For Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, to Certify
Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1292(b) (the "Reply Memorandum").

We also write pursuant to Rule III(A) of Your Honor's Individual

,Practices in connection with Defendantsl anticipated motions to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") filed by
Plaintiff on August 13,2012. The Amended Complamt faIls to cure the defects
identified by the Court in its July 11,2012 Order or adequately plead a claim against
any Defendant under Section lOeb) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. § 78j(b) as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737
(codified in part at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77z-1, 78u-4).

Case 1:11-cv-00733-WHP Document 165 Filed 08/27/12 Page 2 of 2

Hon. William H. Pauley
August 23, 2012
Page 2

The Amended Complaint also does not adequately address the issues

raised by BAC's motion for reconsideration. As discussed in the Reply
Memorandum, BAC respectfully submits that efficiencies can be gained by
considering the motion for reconsideration in connection with Defendants' motions
to dismiss. See Mintz v. Baron, No. 05 Civ. 4904(LTS)(HBP), 2009 WL 735140, at
*1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20,2009).

If the Court desires a pre-motion conference on the anticipated

motions to dismiss, we remain available. If a pre-motion conference is not required,
the parties have agreed upon a proposed briefing schedule.

cc:

All counsel (via email)