In Re Convergent Technologies 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 a prospectus was not materially misleading because it \virtually overflows with ... repeated emphasis of significant risk factors\
• holding that warnings regarding the risks of cost and production projections prevented Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 claim
• holding that company had no duty to disclose problems in implementing significant engineering changes for manufacturing workstations and laptop computers
• holding that a prospectus was not materially misleading because it “virtually overflows with ... repeated emphasis of significant risk factors”
• holding no duty to disclose internal projections or progress in implementing new mechanization structure
• observing that “Instruction 7 to Item 303(a) explicitly states that ‘forward-looking’ information need not be disclosed in Regulation S-K filing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).