S.D. New York· 6/3/2008

In Re AstraZeneca Securities Litigation

Citations

559 F. Supp. 2d 453
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43680
2008 WL 2332325

How courts have described this case

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

holding that scienter not established where plaintiff did not allege that defendant knew of, or should have known of, “certain facts [that would] necessarily prevent the regulatory approval . . . and conceal[ed] these facts from the investing public” (emphasis added)
finding that the plaintiffs had \not alleged an inference of scienter as compelling as the opposing inference\ where there were two possible analyses and conclusions based on the data
“[0]ther facts, such as the approval of [the drug] in Europe for some uses, made it not unreasonable for defendants to believe in their product.”
“There is also scienter if the management is reckless in dealing with ... adverse facts.”
\A person's 22 status as a board member is not alone sufficient to establish jurisdiction ...\
no scienter where FDA briefing document 4 “d[id] not demonstrate that there were certain dangers, known all along to defendants, which 5 would prevent the approval and marketing of [the drug]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Thomas P. Griesa

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.