Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp. v. Georgia Public Service Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that boilerplate cautionary warning did not negate materiality of failure to disclose a significant adverse fact
• stating reliance is required in all 10b-5 cases, but not considering special circumstances of forced seller cases
• interpreting Stone v. Enstam, supra, as limiting state securities actions to those actions against one engaged in the sale process and never including purchases on the open market not from the defendant
• borrowing materiality standard from the Section 14(a) context in the Rule 10b-5 context
• interpreting Texas Securities Act to impose liability on persons constituting a substantial factor in sale, noting that Texas statutory comments referred to section 12(2) as model for state act and noting that the Fifth Circuit uses substantial factor test
• “in a class action, while the materiality element can be established for the class as a whole, reliance, like damages, is a matter of individual proof’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).