In Re Number Nine Visual Technology Corp. 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 when Plaintiffs “challenge the truthfulness of a claim regarding present facts ” the “ ‘be speaks caution’ defense is inapplicable”
• holding that an inventory markdown eight months after a public offering did not support a reasonable inference that material information about the inventory’s obsolescence was omitted from the prospectus, in part because “the computer industry is a field marked by rapid technological advances”
• using allegations advanced in complaint primarily to show scienter as means to support particularity holding
• applying entanglement test and requiring plaintiff to allege time, place, content, and speaker of defendant’s communications with analysts
• denying a motion to dismiss because the complaint alleged simply that the plaintiffs purchased securities “in or traceable to” the contested stock offering
• discussing the relevance of the timing factor to the materiality inquiry

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).