Central Consumers Co. v. Pinkert

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]llegations as to the importance of quality and quality control are merely allegations of what could theoretically motivate a company” and not an indicator of scienter
• ruling that plaintiffs must prove a primary violation to prove control liability
• explaining that statements made before the class period did not render false or misleading the company’s statements made during the class period
• explaining that statements made before the class period did not render false or misleading the company’s statements made during the class 12 period
• holding scienter inadequately alleged where executive “had an established practice” of quarterly sales and had increased her volume of sales because she was retiring
• declining to find suspicious sales where a defendant’s “stock sales fail[ed] to match up closely with her allegedly false and misleading statements”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).