Wilson v. Purnell & Mason-Fayette Oil Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that if plaintiff had pled sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the fraudulent knowledge of a vice president and an assistant vice president “at the center” of a scheme, their intent could have been imputed to corporation
• stating that “courts have readily attributed the scienter of management-level employees to corporate defendants” and collecting cases
• holding SOX certifications about internal controls not actionable because “plaintiffs fail to allege any facts pertaining to Sanofi’s internal structure for financial reporting, much less that Sanofi lacked adequate internal controls” (citation and alterations omitted)
• dismissing claim where alleged deficiencies regarding illegal kickback scheme did not relate to statements regarding the efficacy of internal controls for financial reporting
• holding descriptions of the growth of a product line were not misleading because none of the statements “offered any explanation as to why the products were selling more . . . [nor] attribute[ed] the sales growth to a particular factor that is implicated in the alleged fraud”
• “the allegation that a corporation properly reported income that is alleged to have been, in part, improperly obtained is insufficient to impose Section 10(b) liability”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).