David Arazie, Paul Karinsky, William Klein v. Robert E. Mullane, Paul J. Johnson, William E. Chandler

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that particularity requires the party to specify the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged fraudulent act
• noting, however, that the relevant pleading standards must be kept in mind when applying the abuse of discretion standard
• affirming dismissal of securities fraud complaint pursuant to Rule 9(b) because plaintiffs failed to provide the “who, what, where and when” regarding internal memos and reports that allegedly demonstrated falsity of statements at issue
• \temporal proximity between positive statements stressing firms' strengths and announcements of poor economic performance do not create an inference that the earlier statements were fraudulent\
• court need not accept amended complaint where it is apparent that it fails to cure defects identified in original complaint
• court need not accept amended complaint where it is apparent that it fails to cure defects identified in original complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).