In Re AstraZeneca Securities Litigation

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).