Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that this Court does not accept “the bare assertion of legal conclusions” or “unwarranted factual inferences” when determining if a plaintiff has stated a claim
• finding the argument that defendants’ disclosure duty under Rule 10b-5 claim may stem from Item 303 unpersuasive
• affirming dismissal where an allegedly omitted opinion regarding future action would have been flatly erroneous
• finding alleged violation of disclosure obligation imposed by provision of SEC Regulation S-K does not create an independent private right of action and describing as “unpersuasive” argument defendants’ disclosure duty under Rule 10b-5 could flow from that provision
• “Whether the premium was so high that the company should have been able to predict that it would prove counterproductive was clearly a matter of opinion-soft information as to which there was no duty of disclosure.”
• “Whether the premium was so high that the company should have been able to predict that it would prove counterproductive was clearly a matter of opinion-soft information as to which there was no duty of disclosure.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).