Edwards v. Kevil

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs’ claim that the offering documents failed to disclose certain risks was “rendered untenable by the more than 25 plain English warnings concerning the risks” of the investment
• concluding that offering documents for a similar product as the one at issue in this case contained sufficient disclosures of Credit Suisse’s discretion to delist or stop issuing ETNs and the risks associated with doing so
• “ ‘[Plaintiffs are not allowed to plead Section 11 claims with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight’ because ‘Section 11 claim[s] cannot be based on a backward-looking assessment of the registration statement.’ ”
• “Defendants [did not] have a duty to include forecasts ‘based on a range of historical VIX volatility[ ]’ ... [because] historical volatility data [and] the volatility trends are publicly available
• “Plaintiffs are not allowed to plead Section 11 claims with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight because Section 11 claims cannot be based on a backward- looking assessment of the registration statement.”
• “Where, as here, Section 11 claims sound in negligence rather than in fraud, Plaintiffs pleading must satisfy the basic requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than the heightened standard set by Rule 9(b)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).