D. Arizona· 5/28/1999

In Re PETsMART, Inc. Securities Litigation

Citations

61 F. Supp. 2d 982
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13218
1999 WL 641779

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).

Judges: Moran

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.