Clinton Manufacturing & Packing Co. v. Fullerton

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 claim under Section 15(a) was duplicative of a claim for the underlying securities law violation
• holding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that boilerplate legal compliance statements were misleading where they suggested that the defendant “routinely responded to investigatory requests from the Government, but was not presently in the process of responding to such a request”
• recognizing parallel control person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
• noting that Omnicare may call Fait into question
• “In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.”
• “There can be no assurance that we will not receive subpoenas or be- requested to produce documents.... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).