City of Louisville v. Vaughn

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the defendants had “ultimate authority” over the content
• noting that defendant’s alleged attempts to hide and cover up the specifics of 17 the alleged fraudulent scheme supported an inference of scienter
• dismissing control person liability claims where “allegation improperly lumps together all Defendants”
• detailing fifteen actions taken by one executive in furtherance of the scheme
• “a 2 ‘pump-and-dump stock scheme is a classic violation’ of Rules 10b–5(a) and (c)”
• detailing nine more actions taken by a third executive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).