Lexington & Eastern Railway Co. v. Smith's Administrator

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that plaintiffs satisfied scienter requirement where they alleged multiple facts showing that defendants had contemporaneous knowledge of relevant company problems, but failed to disclose those problems
• holding that plaintiffs plausibly pled a GAAP-telated claim related to ASC 944—-40-30-1 and ASC—944-40-35—9 where defendant insurance company “relied on ‘old data not reflective of current reality’”
• finding that the defendants’ personal monetary benefits were “relevant and meaningful in considering the totality of the circumstances”
• finding that where individual defendants participated in a committee that met regularly to 42 conduct a close review of the business unit with allegedly flawed reserves, the Court could “reasonably infer” individual defendants’ knowledge of relevant information
• finding that while statements about the adequacy of reserves constituted statements of opinion, they nonetheless were actionable, as plaintiffs plausibly pled that insurance executives knew that figures used to calculate the company’s reserves relied on outdated data
• finding that the long- term insurance division qualified as a core operation where a director declared that the division was one of the company's two “core sets of businesses” and that long-term care comprised the company's “core business”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).