Zagg, Inc. Securities Litigation v. Zagg, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that because plaintiffs “have not sufficiently alleged a primary violation of either § 10(b) or § 14(a) by any of the Defendants[,]” their Section 20(a) “claims fail as a matter of law” (citation omitted)
• concluding that because plaintiffs “have not sufficiently alleged a primary violation of either § 10(b) or § 14(a) by any of the Defendants[,]” so their Section 20(a) “claims fail as a matter of law” (citation omitted)
• affirming Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of securities fraud claims where the district court took judicial notice of several publicly available documents, including SEC forms
• “[F]orced resignation[s] are at most an acknowledgement that the company identified a better way of doing things moving forward, not an indicator that fraudulent intent existed at the time the alleged omissions occurred.” (citations omitted)
• “Recklessness in the context of securities fraud is a high bar.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).