City of Louisville v. Button

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statement that \nothing in [the companies'] fundamentals has changed\ was not actionable
• finding reference to “growth at ViSalus” too vague to induce reasonable reliance by an investor
• finding no plausible claim where a company’s 10-K and 10-Q filings “sufficiently informed the market about [the company’s] business model and the risks associated with that model”
• statements amounting to “corporate ‘puffery[]’ are considered to be inactionable under the securities laws regardless of whether they omit related information”
• “[I]t is far from certain that the requirement that there be a duty to disclose under Rule 10b‐5 may be satisfied by importing the disclosure duties from S‐K 303. . . .” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).