Aldridge v. A.T. Cross Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not give all reasonable inferences to the plaintiff when analyzing the sufficiency of facts pled to demonstrate fraud, and reversing the district court’s dismissal
• holding that, based on the language of company disclosures in 1999, it would be reasonable to infer that statements made in 1998 by the defendants had omitted material information
• holding that plaintiff did not allege facts that show strong inference of scienter
• noting that generalized financial incentive allegations are relevant to the scienter analysis only if they “go far beyond the usual arrangements of compensation based on the company’s earnings”
• emphasizing that “the alleged controlling person must not only have the general power to control the company, but must also actually exercise control over the company”
• stating that a plaintiff must specify time, place, and content of allegedly misleading statements and factual support for their fraudulence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).