Dept. of Children and Families v. M.N. and O.C.S.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that restatement disclosing that net income was overstated by 15% to 67% per quarter did not give rise to strong inference of scienter in the absence of other compelling allegations supporting scienter
• finding that CW 26 accounts “from before the class period [are] relevant because [they] can confirm what a 27 defendant should have known during the class period”
• defining the core operation doctrine as a theory that infers “that facts critical to a business’ ‘core operations’ or an important transaction are known to a company’s key officers.”
• “[W]e have recognized that a lack of stock sales can 24 detract from a scienter finding.”
• “The [scienter] bar . . . is not easy to 5 satisfy . . . .”
• while the 14 allegations gave the court “pause” and indicated that “all was not right at the helm,” they 15 did not “give rise to an inference of scienter that is at least as compelling as the inference 16 of an honest mistake”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).