In Re Westinghouse Securities Litigation. Margaret Alessi, Gloria Bertinato, Michael C. Christner, Anna Marie Eroshevich, Toby Feuer, Kanwal K. Gupta, M.D., Matthew Harlib, Stanley Hershfang, Arnold M. Jacob, Louise Jacob, David Jaroslawicz, David Kirschner, Nathan Kleinhandler, Gerry Krim, Peter La

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that complaint was sufficient because it did not merely challenge defendants’ judgment regarding when col-lectibility became doubtful
• concluding that a loan loss reserve that amounted to 0.54% of Westinghouse’s net income was quantitatively immaterial
• holding that prior interlocutory orders merge with final judgment and the interlocutory orders may be reviewed on appeal from the final order
• holding actionable representations by the company and its underwriters that the prices for a public offering were fair and estimated based on the most current information available at the time of the offering
• holding that a write-down of .54% of net income was not material
• stating that we review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 for an abuse of discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).