Shaw v. Digital Equipment 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 plaintiffs stated claims for material omissions from Prospectus under both 1933 Act and 1934 Act
• holding that a statement that restructuring reserve was “adequate” is forward-looking insofar as it “suggests that [the issuer] would take no further restructuring charges in the near-term future.”
• recognizing that the language of the statute indicates a direct relationship between buyer and seller
• holding that the bespeaks caution doctrine does not apply to represen- tations of “present facts” that were false when made
• holding that loosely optimistic statements are non-actionable as a matter of law
• holding that the definition of “seller” is the same under 12(a)(1) and 12(a)(2)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).