In Re Sanofi-Aventis 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 an omission is actionable under Section 10(b) only if “the omitted fact is material” and “the speaker had a duty to disclose the omitted fact”
• finding allegations were “sufficient to raise a strong inference that sanofi’s al--leged omission constituted recklessness” where “Plaintiffs have specifically alleged that sanofi and the individual defendants who were speakers had either knowledge of or access to the omitted facts”
• “Plaintiffs cannot premise a fraud claim upon a mere disagreement with how [defendants] chose to interpret the results.”
• Plaintiffs “must show both that the Defendants did not actually hold the belief or opinion stated, and that the opinion stated was in fact incorrect”
• \ 'It is axiomatic that the Complaint cannot be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.' \
• “[I]t is axiomatic that the Complaint cannot be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).