Geiger v. Solomon-Page Group, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) claims because the defendants were not required to disclose allegedly omitted information
• supporting the application of Rule 9(b) to Section 11 claims where fraud is alleged
• a company and its officers and directors always have a “generalized motive to ensure the success” of the company’s IPO
• “[A] company issuing its stock to the public always has a generalized motive to ensure the success of the issue and to raise as much money as possible.”
• \The stock price may have fallen for many reasons including other negative disclosures included in the very same newspaper article which were not alleged as the basis for a fraudulent omission in this case.\
• “[t]he fact that the SEC does not require disclosure” of the omitted fact “is further support for this conclusion” that the alleged omission did not give rise to liability under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) because “it reflects the SEC’s expert view that such disclosure is not required”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).