Gillespie Bros. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing in a case with multiple corrective disclosures to appoint a lead plaintiff that relied exclusively on a single disclosure for its theory of loss
• “Having considered the parties’ respective arguments, the Court finds that the Fund has failed to demonstrate that it will be an adequate lead plaintiff because it was a total in-and-out trader and may be unable to demonstrate loss causation.”
• “they have made no allegation that the public was aware, prior to the [final] disclosure, that the reason the Company was not making its projected revenues was because of the alleged fraud”
• lead plaintiff candidate had “failed to demonstrate that it will be an adequate lead plaintiff because it was a total in-and-out trader and may be unable to demonstrate loss causation’
• “In proving loss causation, a party typically identifies a disclosure of the fraud that causes a drop in the price of the stock. If, however, ‘the purchaser sells the shares quickly before the relevant truth begins to leak out, the misrepresentation will not have led to any loss.’ ”
• “In proving causation, there must be more than just a decline in price as a result of a disclosure by the company that the company is doing 11 poorly; there must be some identification of a disclosure of the fraud that causes a drop in the stock price.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).