Roberto Cohen v. Nvidia Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the departures of executives did not support an inference of scienter because two of the three executives remained at the company in an advisory role
• disclosing that performance of Pier l’s distribution centers had “been disrupted -by our extremely high inventory levels.”
• stating that a document may be “consider[ed] . . . in its entirety” where plaintiffs 20 “rel[ied] on portions of it in their complaint”
• holding Item 303 does not create a duty to disclose for securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
• noting that the articles cited by the plaintiffs did not contribute to a strong inference of scienter, in part because they “d[id] not reflect [the defendants’] knowledge” at the time of the alleged misstatements
• stating that in reviewing the sufficiency of 26 complaint, court is limited to complaint, its attached exhibits, documents incorporated by reference, and matters properly subject to judicial notice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).