Richard Romani v. Shearson Lehman Hutton

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming that plaintiffs had no claim for fraud in light of statements in prospectus
• rejecting a fraud claim in light of the underlying documents, pursuant to a 12(b)(6) motion
• finding that complaint failed to satisfy Rule 9(b) where it contained “no factual allegations that would support a reasonable inference that adverse circumstances existed at the time of the offering, and were known and deliberately or recklessly disregarded by defendants”
• considering offering documents submitted by defendants with motion to dismiss claim of securities fraud
• collecting cases in which plaintiffs do allege in sufficient detail the facts and figures upon which their claims were based
• offering documents properly considered by district court where complaint alleged documents to be source of securities fraud but where plaintiff did not attach documents to complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).