Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund v. Apollo Group Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that allegations of loss causation must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s heightened “particularity” requirement
• holding that plaintiffs cannot establish control person 25 liability under section 20(a) when “they have not adequately alleged violations of section 10(b) 26 and Rule 10b-5”
• holding that Rule 9(b) is the appropriate pleading standard for loss causation because 1
• holding allegedly misleading statements were opinions where they “were subjective and preceded by qualifiers, such as ‘We believe.’ ”
• explaining that the term “significant events” was “vague” and “provide[d] nothing concrete upon which a plaintiff could reasonably rely”
• concluding terms like “educational content” and “teaching resources” provided 11 “nothing concrete upon which [the Plaintiffs] could rely” (alteration in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).