Rinick v. Glunt

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that similar arguments regarding the disaggregation of regulatory penalties from losses caused by the alleged fraud “involve questions of fact”
• holding that past misstatements could have been relied upon until the time where they were allegedly disclosed, and this question is one of fact not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss
• recognizing that “[t]he efficient market hypothesis, premised upon the speed (efficiency
• noting that “plaintiffs asserting claims under Rule 10b-5 must do more than say that the statements ... were false and misleading: they must demonstrate with specificity why and how that is so.”
• noting that pleading loss causation under either theory is sufficient
• relying on among other things plaintiffs expert economic analysis to show loss causation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).