In Re Forest Laboratories, Inc. Derivative Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting plaintiffs attempt to impute knowledge of accounting errors “to Outside Directors who are not alleged to be directly involved in the day-to-day operations of the company”
• “Plaintiffs have failed to plead with particularity what obvious danger signs were ignored .... ” (quotation marks and citations omitted)
• “Because Rule 23.1 requires particularized allegations, the pleading standard is higher than the standard applicable to a pleading subject to a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).”
• “Although [the drugs] do comprise an overwhelming majority of [the company]’s business, [eighty two percent,] it cannot follow that every fact pertaining to those drugs may reasonably be imputed to Outside Directors.”
• “Assuming, for purposes of discussion, that Rule 9(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).