Morris v. Crocker

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that while the alleged omissions at issue were material, they did not rise to the level of the considerably higher “most significant factors” standard of Item 503
• finding statements concerning management’s “relentless” commitment to safety misleading where defendants already were aware of extensive and serious problems with a dam that later failed
• finding detailed safety-related statements describing annual assessments, specific policies and reports on injury frequency to be actionable misstatements
• finding corporate scienter where “the Amended Complaint alleges with particularity facts indicating that [company] executives … had access to information that revealed the statements and omissions to be misleading”
• “There is no formulaic method or seniority prerequisite for employee scienter to be imputed to the corporation, but scienter by management- level employees is generally sufficient to attribute scienter to corporate defendants.”
• risk disclosures that did not address facts plaintiffs alleged defendant knew of, including that certain facilities “may not comply with our standards,” were materially false and misleading for pleadings purposes (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).