Whitted v. City of Philadelphia

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that- “[w]hile it is possible to infer that ... executives deliberately omitted facts ... in order to hoodwink investors, it is just as plausible, indeed more so, to infer that they only offered vague details about the study because it was ongoing.”
• finding no' scienter, stating “[bjecause the above statements are all factually accurate, albeit with a positive spin, scienter would have to be inferred from the company’s omission of more specific details about the study ...”
• finding Defendants' failure to disclose adverse event within ongoing clinical trial insufficient to support strong inference of scienter where the Defendants never mentioned the study by name or gave any concrete details regarding the study

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).