Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “there is no duty to update” if “the original statements are not material” (citations omitted)
• noting that suits under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b–5 require the plaintiff to allege a false or misleading statement or omission
• noting that suits under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 require the plaintiff to allege a false or misleading statement or omission
• explaining that the statements about the safety of the dividend were neither false nor misleading because the defendant maintained the dividend at its prior level after the statements were made
• finding no duty to update “vague statements of optimism or expressions of opinion” that “lack the sort of definite positive projections that might require later correction.”
• finding that the defendant’s statement that the company was not concerned about covering the dividend this quarter was not actionable because “it contains no long-term guarantee or assurance” and was “an expression of optimism that is too indefinite to be actionable under the securities laws.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).