Litwin v. Blackstone Group, L.P.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “it is not necessary to assert that the investor would have acted differently if an accurate disclosure was made”
• observing that, at the pleading stage, “a court must consider both ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ factors in assessing an item’s materiality”
• holding Item 303 violated where new information “mask[ed] a change in earnings or other trends”
• holding, in securities context, that in order to establish a “material misrepresentation,” a plaintiff must offer sufficient evidence of “a statement or omission that a reasonable investor would have considered significant in making investment decisions”
• observing that Item 303 “imposes a disclosure duty where a trend, demand, commitment, event or uncertainty is both [1] presently known to management and [2] reasonably likely to have material effects on the registrant’s financial condition or results of operations.”
• overturning district court’s conclusion that misstatement was immaterial solely because it fell well below the five percent threshold

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).