In re the Claim of Cranston

How courts have described this case

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

• sales made while defendants falsely assured analysts that a legal settlement would have no economic effect
• The court “must determine whether particular facts in the complaint, taken as a whole, raise a strong inference that defendants intentionally or with deliberate recklessness made false or misleading statements.”
• fact that the defendants’ eligibility for stock options and executive bonuses were tied to the company’s financial performance supported inference of scienter
• “If a plaintiff fails to plead either the alleged misleading statements or scienter with particularity, his or her complaint must be dismissed.”
• “In sum, although recognizing that some of Plaintiffs’ allegations are individually lacking, we hold that the allegations in their totality are sufficient to meet the stringent pleading standard set forth in the PSLRA.”
• “Scienter can be established even if the officers who made the misleading statements did not sell stock during the class period. In other words, the lack of stock sales by a defendant is not dispos-itive of scienter.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).