Albert Fadem Trust v. American Electric Power Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding the most plausible of competing inferences was that the defendants acted diligently in remedying a problem when they became aware of it and to hold otherwise would give companies a disincentive to make disclosures of employee malfeasance
• resignation one month after damaging public disclosure does not support strong inference of scienter
• “courts have determined that companies generally are not liable for forecasts or statements by analysts unless defendants have ‘sufficiently entangled’ [themselves] with the analysts’ forecasts [so as] to render those predictions ‘attributable to [the issuers] ... ’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).