Duit Constr. Co. v. Ark. State Claims Comm'n

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs failed to show personnel changes at the company were related to the restatement.
• finding that personnel changes did not support an inference of scienter where it was unclear whether the resignation was related to the alleged fraud
• “When the alleged fraud is based on misrepresentation or false statements, however, it is not enough to merely allege that defendants knew or must have known that their statements were false.” (citing GSC Partners CDO Fund v. Washington, 368 F.3d 228, 239 (3d Cir. 2004))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).