John W. Mathews v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc., A Delaware Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that inquiry notice exists where “a reasonable investor of ordinary intelligence would have discovered the [suspicious] information and rec- ognized it” as suspicious
• concluding that once the defendants establish the existence of storm warnings, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to indicate that she exercised reasonable due diligence and yet was unable to discover her injuries
• noting that a “mix of information may constitute a storm warning in the aggregate”
• stating that “a RICO claim accrues when the plaintiffs should have discovered their injuries”
• explaining that “storm warnings” may include “any financial, legal or other data that would alert a reasonable person to the probability that misleading statements . . . had been made” (citation omitted)
• expressing concern about “a flood of untimely litigation” were we to “adopt[] too broad an interpretation of inquiry notice”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).