In Re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing “opinion-based statements that are anchored in ‘misrepresentation of existing facts’” from puffery in the context of securities fraud
• distinguishing “opinion-based statements that are anchored in ‘misrepresentation of existing facts’” from puffery in the context of securities fraud
• finding negligence standard satisfied where directors “were aware of the bonus agreement” at issue, “and a review of the Joint Proxy would have shown them that the agreement was not disclosed”
• applying Rule 8(a) pleading standard to Section 14(a) claims sounding in negligence
• “Even ‘indefinite and unverifiable’ terms, such as observations that an offer was' ‘fair’ or of a ‘high’ value, can be actionable under Section 14(a
• “[T]hese preliminary conceptual estimates are based on data gathered from exploring only 8 kilometres of Tasiast’s 70 kilometre green-stone belt .... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).