Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,713 Adolph P. Raab Lenora Isaacs v. General Physics Corporation Martin M. Pollak Roger E. Klose John C. McAuliffe

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 had failed to plead sufficient facts to support an inference that the defendants exercised control over a security analyst's report
• holding that “General Physics’ accurate reporting of its past results did not ... require the company to speculate on the effect that a contract slowdown at the [Department of Education] in 1992 would have on its future earnings.”
• holding similar statement predicting future growth not material because \the market price of a share is not inflated by vague statements predicting growth\
• explaining that the defendant “had no duty to advise investors of what was already commonly known”
• finding that the defendant’s statement that it was “poised to carry the growth and success of the prior year well into the future” constituted puffery
• finding that the defendants did not have a duty to disclose a slump in contracting and its potential effects on the validity of the company’s projected growth statements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).