Second Circuit· 2/10/2011

Litwin v. Blackstone Group, L.P.

Citations

634 F.3d 706
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2641
2011 WL 447050

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).

Judges: Miner, Cabranes, Straub

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

100 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.