Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that cautionary language may render alleged misstatements or omissions concerning predictive statements immaterial as a matter of law
• concluding that statements in prospectus were not actionable because of inclusion of extensive cautionary statements tailored to the specific risks involved
• holding that meaningful cautionary language renders an alleged omission immaterial as a matter of law.
• holding that meaningful cautionary language renders an alleged omission immaterial as a matter of law.
• noting that a court “may consider an undisputedly authentic document . . . if the plaintiff’s claims are based on the document[]”
• observing that § 10(b), Rule 10b-5, § 11, and § 12(2) all share the same standard of materiality

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).