Arnold B. ELKIND, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. LIGGETT & MYERS, INC., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a company may sufficiently entangle itself with analysts' forecasts to render the predictions attributable to the company, but finding no such liability
• rejecting expert testimony on the price at which the market would have valued the stock if there had been disclosure as hypothetical and “entirely speculative.”
• discussing, inter alia, the possibility of imposing draconian damages on a tippee
• applying the TSC standard to an action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, holding it to be “a relevant question in determining materiality ... whether the ... information ... would have been likely to affect the decision of potential buyers and sellers.”
• defrauded buyer could not recover for subsequent price decline because not \in connection with\ the purchase
• comments by corporate officers like “we expect another good year” were not specific enough to mislead the sophisti cated investors to whom they were addressed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).