28 Cited authorities

Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights
551 U.S. 308 (2007) Cited 9,071 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
Rothman v. Gregor
220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 1,321 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the date of the filing of the motion to amend constitutes the date the action was commenced for statute of limitations purposes" when "the plaintiff seeks to add a new defendant" (quoting Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Alberts , 769 F. Supp. 498, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1991) )
Acito v. Imcera Group, Inc.
47 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 1,130 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that selling stock, by itself, insufficient to plead scienter, absent allegations that "stock sales were 'unusual'"
Kalnit v. Eichler
264 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 842 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a complaint “does not present facts indicating a clear duty to disclose” it does not establish “ strong evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness”
In re Morgan Stanley Infor
592 F.3d 347 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 417 times 3 Legal Analyses
Affirming the district court's dismissal of a Section 15 claim where the plaintiffs' Section 11 and 12 claims were properly dismissed
Litwin v. Blackstone Group, L.P.
634 F.3d 706 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 302 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts must analyze all relevant qualitative and quantitative factors in assessing materiality
Fait v. Regions Financial Corp..
655 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 203 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that "statements regarding the adequacy of loan loss reserves" are statements of opinion
Freudenberg v. E*TRADE Financial Corp.
712 F. Supp. 2d 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Cited 134 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[t]rading plans are not a cognizable defense to scienter allegations on a motion to dismiss where, as here, they were adopted during the Class Period”
Glaser v. The9 Ltd.
772 F. Supp. 2d 573 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) Cited 124 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "highly unusual and suspicious" resignations support scienter
In re Lehman Brothers Securities Erisa Litigation
799 F. Supp. 2d 258 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements regarding compliance with GAAS and GAAP are inherently statements of opinion

In re AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

28 Cited authorities

Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

Holding that "the date of the filing of the motion to amend constitutes the date the action was commenced for statute of limitations purposes" when "the plaintiff seeks to add a new defendant" (quoting Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Alberts , 769 F. Supp. 498, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1991) )

Holding that selling stock, by itself, insufficient to plead scienter, absent allegations that "stock sales were 'unusual'"

Holding that where a complaint “does not present facts indicating a clear duty to disclose” it does not establish “ strong evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness”

Affirming the district court's dismissal of a Section 15 claim where the plaintiffs' Section 11 and 12 claims were properly dismissed

Holding that courts must analyze all relevant qualitative and quantitative factors in assessing materiality

Holding that "statements regarding the adequacy of loan loss reserves" are statements of opinion

Holding that “[t]rading plans are not a cognizable defense to scienter allegations on a motion to dismiss where, as here, they were adopted during the Class Period”

Holding that "highly unusual and suspicious" resignations support scienter

Holding that statements regarding compliance with GAAS and GAAP are inherently statements of opinion