Wenger v. Lumisys, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding “we were able to perform two successful acquisitions last year” and “1995 was a very good year for Lumisys” to constitute nonactionable vague statements
• finding statements and projections about the market inactionable because “reasonable investors do not consider ‘soft’ statements or loose predictions important in making decisions”
• deploring the fact that the complaint had lumped all of the accused statements together in one section and all of the reasons why the statements were alleged to be false and misleading in another section, with no matching between the two, ie., which statements corresponded to which reasons
• “Disclosure of accurate historical data does not become misleading even if less favorable results might be predictable by the company in the future”
• stock sales not suspicious where “none of the sales occurred at suspicious times such as immediately before a negative earnings announcement”
• generic paraphrasing of alleged oral misstatements during road shows and conference calls lacked specificity required under Rule 9(b)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).