Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that securities fraud plaintiffs must show that they “would have been spared all or an ascertainable portion of that loss absent the fraud”
• holding that information showing “opportunities for fraud” does not, itself, “evidence fraud,” and that such information, together with “stray and indiscriminate” evidence of false statements, was “insufficient to put plaintiffs on inquiry notice of the specific frauds alleged”
• finding that an allegation that misstatements \induced a 'purchase-time value disparity' between the price paid for a security and its 'true investment quality' \ is \nothing more than a paraphrased allegation of transaction causation\
• stating that plaintiffs had not adequately pled loss causation because, inter alia, “plaintiffs [did not] allege that [defendant] concealed or misstated any risks associated with an investment in [the security], some of which presumably caused plaintiffs’ loss”
• stating that loss causation is generally a “fact- based inquiry” appropriate for trial
• downgrading recommendation from “buy” to “neutral” does not reveal falsity of “buy” rating and therefore is not “corrective”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).