In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Connecticut law recognized a common law claim for aiding and abetting negligent torts because Connecticut law based its aiding and abetting liability claims on section 876(b) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts
• concluding the court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the bankruptcy removal statute
• concluding the court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the bankruptcy removal statute
• applying actual malice standard to claims against Moody’s and Fitch because their ratings of Enron, a large public company, were distributed “to the world”
• discussing FTC v. Bunte Bros., 312 U.S. 349, 350- 51 (1941)
• “[t]he well-pleaded complaint rule is not applicable in ‘related to’ bankruptcy removal cases.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).