In Re Merck & Co. Securities Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that “Merck’s stock did not drop after the first disclosure, and that is generally when we measure the materiality of the disclosure, not [the subsequent disclosure]”
• observing that the district court retains the power to \modify or grant injunctions\ following an appeal
• noting that materiality may be measured by looking at whether the price of the stock changes immediately following disclosure
• finding that the Wall Street Journal’s repackaging of previously available information is not a corrective disclosure
• reaffirming that “[s]ections 11 and 10(b) share the materiality element and the [same] materiality definition”
• “The fraud-on-the-market theory supposes that ‘the price of a company’s stock is determined by the available material information regarding the company and its business.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).