Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. MF Global, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the doctrine did not apply to the omission of information about the then-existing failure to enforce security protocols to a company’s employees
• finding that defendants’ affirmative defense was apparent from the plaintiffs’ allegations in their complaint
• “To prevail on a § 11 or § 12(a)(2) claim, a plaintiff must show that the relevant communication either misstated or omitted a material fact.”
• “[T]here is a discernible difference between a forecast and a fact, and courts are competent to distinguish between the two[.]”
• “An affirmative defense may be raised by a pre-answer motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) … if the defense appears on the face of the complaint.”
• “[A] statement of confidence in a firm’s operations may be forward-looking — and thus insulated by the bespeaks-caution doctrine — even while statements or omissions as to the operations in place (and present intentions as to future operations) are not.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).