Miller v. Champion Enterprises, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• relying on 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(i)(1)(D) and finding reference to use of term \continuation\ in phrase \continuation of outstanding earnings growth\ did not transform an otherwise forward-looking prediction into an unprotected mixed statement
• affirming the district court’s denial of a motion to amend based on futility
• “The purpose of the PSLRA would be frustrated if district courts were required to allow repeated amendments to complaints filed under the PSLRA.”
• A “statement of present or historical fact . . . is not subject to the safe harbor provision of the PSLRA.”
• “The district court also correctly held that allowing repeated filing of amended complaints would frustrate the purpose of the PSLRA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).