Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff must set forth the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged fraud
• recognizing that Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA “impose independent, threshold pleading requirements that, if not met, support dismissal apart from Rule 12(b)(6)”
• holding that plaintiffs “may not benefit from inferences flowing from vague or unspecific allegations — inferences that may arguably have been justified under a traditional Rule 12(b)(6) analysis”
• holding that where “the requisite factual information is peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge or control” plaintiffs must still “accompany their legal theory with factual allegations that make their theoretically viable claim plausible.”
• stating that a securities fraud complaint must plead the “ ‘who, what, when, where and how’ of the events at issue”
• noting that the materially-adds standard is not met unless the relator's information \adds in a significant way to the essential factual background\ and describing the Rule 9(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).