Henderson v. Litscher

How courts have described this case

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

• deciding statement that company “has on hand and has access to sufficient sources of funds to meet its anticipated ... needs” was not forward-looking given company’s alleged dire cash shortage was then present fact
• concluding “where the falsehood relates to a representation of present fact in the statement, it will not necessarily come within the statute’s safe harbor, even though the statement might also contain a projection of future financial experience”
• finding strong inference of scienter against executive who knowingly misrepresented the financial condition of the company
• explaining the limited safe harbor for statements about expectations for the company’s financial future
• the safe harbor “is intended to apply only to allegations of falsehood as to the forward-looking aspects of the statement.”
• “Under [Section 18(a)], . . . a plaintiff bears no burden of proving that the defendant acted with any particular state of mind.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).