Skelton v. Federal Surety Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that an allegation that' misleading statements by securities analysts were prepared with the approval and guidance of the company was sufficient to state a claim against the company for securities fraud
• saying the company “anticipates a continuation of its accelerated 26 expansion schedule” when the expansion already failed was misleading
• saying the 3 company “anticipates a continuation of its accelerated expansion schedule” when the expansion 4 already failed was not puffery
• making clear that even though the bad news was announced after the positive statements were made, this bad news can support a claim for fraud if the intervening time is sufficiently short
• noting plaintiff must show “how and why the statement was misleading when made”
• stating 11 that Rule 9(b) permits general pleading for “condition of mind.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).