Slayton v. American Express Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that cautionary language is insufficient where it did not “convey[ ] substantive information” about the risk at issue
• noting that a defendant need only establish one of these conditions to take advantage of the safe harbor
• warning that “potential deterioration in the high-yield sector . . . could result in further losses in [company’s] portfolio” was too vague
• noting that “conference report is generally the most reliable evidence in legislative history of congressional intent because it represents the final statement of the terms agreed to by both houses” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that taking the time to order an investigation, ascertain, and disclose future losses “was a prudent course of action that weakens rather than strengthens an inference of scienter”
• noting that good faith efforts to uncover problems undermine an inference of scienter

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).