In Re Parmalat 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 the fact that the true extent of the fraud was not revealed to the public until two (2
• stating that plaintiffs alleged that the coordinating entity, Deloitte [Tomatsu], intervened in the management of the audits at issue
• noting that a court may deny a motion to dismiss when \plaintiffs have made specific allegations from which an agency relationship could be inferred\
• finding that where an agency relationship was “not so closely intertwined with the claim of securities fraud that it [was] a circumstance of the fraud itself” the plaintiff did not need to plead it with particularity
• “allegfing] that [a member firm auditor in charge of the audit] sought direction and help from [Deloitte Tomatsu], from which it could be inferred that [Deloitte Tomatsu] was in ultimate control of the audit”
• finding general allegations that Deloitte Italy and the other member firms conducting the Parmalat audit did so as the agents or otherwise under the control of Deloitte USA and DTT were sufficient

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).