Schultz v. Lirc

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff must allege a corrective disclosure or some other corrective event
• concluding that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege loss causation because none of the alleged misstatements had concealed the price-volatility risk that materialized and caused at least some of the plaintiffs’ losses
• holding that to prove loss causation, a plaintiff must allege “that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security”
• holding that it is “fatal under Second Circuit precedent” if “[t]here is no allegation that the market reacted negatively to a corrective disclosure regarding the falsity of [the defendants’] ‘buy1 and ‘accumulate’ recommendations”
• suggesting that although conflicts of interest present opportunities for fraud, they cannot, without more, furnish the basis of a fraud complaint
• acknowledging that loss causation can be established by a “corrective disclosure to the market” that “reveal[s] ... the falsity of prior recommendations”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).