In Re Sunbeam Securities Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that group pleading, while capable of satisfying Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement, does not apply to the PSLRA’s scienter requirements
• stating that the statutory safe harbor does not protect Defendants from liability based on statements that misrepresent historical or current factors
• finding that complaint adequately alleged scienter where it detailed defendant’s “role in the day-to-day operations of [the company] and his intimate involvement in many of the allegedly fraudulent sales practices.”
• denying dismissal in part where common stock price dropped from a class period high of $52 per share to $10 7/16 after disclosures where made
• finding scienter against two defendants based in part upon “the diverse and continuing nature” of the alleged accounting fraud
• “[I]t would'be imprudent to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss based upon the possibility that some of the alleged statements may be protected by the statutory safe harbor.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).