In Re PETsMART, Inc. Securities Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting in passing that the sale of 20% of stock during the class period might be enough to raise an inference of scienter under certain circumstances
• collecting cases finding 11% of holdings insufficient, and holding that “where an individual retained more shares than he or she sold, ... resulting aggregate loss will defeat an inference of fraud.”
• “A desire to present a sound financial profile cannot be viewed, alone, as circumstantial evidence giving rise to a strong inference of scienter.”
• “The pleading must provide 20 some particularized support regarding inventory levels, the defendants’ knowledge, and 21 approximately when plaintiffs think the write-down should have occurred.”
• “[Defendants’ lack of clairvoyance simply does not constitute securities fraud”
• “the doctrine survives the PSLRA”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).