Hutchison v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• reviewing Securities Act claims under notice-pleading standard when plaintiffs disclaim fraud and defendants \do not contend otherwise.\
• finding losses on loans constituting 25% of company’s mezzanine loan portfolio immaterial because plaintiffs pleaded no facts establishing that portfolio was of distinct interest to investors
• stating that materiality turns on whether there is ʺa substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the total mix of information made availableʺ (internal quotation marks omitted
• finding complaint insufficient where it alleged impairment “long after the IPO,” and failed to allege that a “dollar amount of impairment[] was known to [defendant] at the time of the IPO”
• rejecting argument that materiality was supported by the fact that the company’s stock price declined following a press release disclosing the alleged omission when the press release also disclosed other negative information
• collecting cases and concluding that, under Sections 11 and 12, “plaintiffs need not plead that the defendants knew or should have known” of omissions “in order to state a claim for failure to disclose”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).