Hines v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an announcement of a governmental investigation into the precise subject matter which forms the basis of the fraudulent practices at issue can qualify as a partial corrective disclosure for purposes of loss causation
• finding that the allegations viewed as a whole did not give rise to a compelling inference of scienter
• finding that defendants’ representations concerning company’s financial results were materially false or misleading when they failed to disclose alleged Medicare fraud scheme
• finding that the plaintiff “failed to comply with Rule 9(b) with regard to the Section 11 claim[] because it expressly disclaim[ed] all allegations of scienter”
• determining that the plaintiff’s allegations that the individual defendants collectively sold approximately 292,000 shares for $7.1 million in proceeds was insufficient because the complaint only identified reaped proceeds and not net profits
• stating that “courts have looked at the following to indicate that a Section 11 claim sounds in fraud: (1) the complaint contains merely a blanket disclaimer that the plaintiffs do not allege fraud for the purposes of the Securities Act claims; (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).