Cohen v. S.A.C. Trading Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding plaintiffs suspicion in 1991 that defendant had been concealing misrepresentations did not trigger inquiry notice where plaintiff did not discover court records confirming her suspicions until years later
• observing that “duty to inquire is triggered by [knowledge of] information that relates directly to the misrepresentations and omissions” later claimed by plaintiff to constitute fraud (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that the duty to inquire is triggered by information that “relates directly to the misrepresentations and omissions the [p]laintiffs later allege in their action against the defendants”
• explaining that at the motion to dismiss stage, courts view the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and draws all inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor.
• “determining whether a plaintiff had sufficient facts to place her on inquiry notice is often inappropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss”
• providing a statute of limitations of six years for claims “for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).