United States v. Hershenson

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 may not rely on the Affiliated Ute presumption in this mixed context”
• finding that existence of three analyst reports, and possibility that four analysts covered company stock during class period was “neutral in terms of market efficiency”
• comparing news days with non-news days using “sophisticated statistical tests” and stating that both sides’ experts agreed that “the statistical analysis must account for market and industry forces”
• finding efficiency where 0-4 analysts, but considering that factor “relatively neutral”
• “[I]n securities fraud litigation concerning section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5, section 20(a), and section 20A, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that individual issues of reliance will not predominate.”
• majority of courts hold that a plaintiffs purchase of stock after disclosure of materially adverse information does not raise a unique defense that destroys typicality

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).