46 Cited authorities

Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights
551 U.S. 308 (2007) Cited 9,112 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo
544 U.S. 336 (2005) Cited 3,547 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”
ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.
493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 3,874 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that deception occurs when "investors are misled to believe that prices at which they purchase and sell securities are determined by the natural interplay of supply and demand, not rigged by manipulators"
Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green
430 U.S. 462 (1977) Cited 1,065 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Securities Exchange Act is limited in scope to its textual provisions and does not conflict with state law regarding corporate misconduct, particularly corporate mismanagement
Novak v. Kasaks
216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 1,597 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding section 78u-4(b) does not literally require pleading of all facts, so long as facts pleaded provide adequate basis for believing statements were false
Rombach v. Chang
355 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 1,386 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that complaint may establish scienter through facts showing that defendants "had both motive and opportunity to commit fraud"
Kramer v. Time Warner Inc.
937 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1991) Cited 1,988 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court may consider matters of which judicial notice may be taken under Federal Rule of Evidence 201
Rothman v. Gregor
220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 1,322 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) )
Lentell v. Merrill Lynch Co., Inc.
396 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 998 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that to prove loss causation, a plaintiff must allege "that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security"
Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co.
228 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 959 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test
Section 6 - Forfeiture of property in transit
15 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 55 times 2 Legal Analyses
Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section 1 of this title, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law. 15 U.S.C. § 6 July 2

Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund v. Scholastic Corp. et al

46 Cited authorities

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

Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”

Holding that deception occurs when "investors are misled to believe that prices at which they purchase and sell securities are determined by the natural interplay of supply and demand, not rigged by manipulators"

Holding that the Securities Exchange Act is limited in scope to its textual provisions and does not conflict with state law regarding corporate misconduct, particularly corporate mismanagement

Holding section 78u-4(b) does not literally require pleading of all facts, so long as facts pleaded provide adequate basis for believing statements were false

Holding that complaint may establish scienter through facts showing that defendants "had both motive and opportunity to commit fraud"

Holding that the Court may consider matters of which judicial notice may be taken under Federal Rule of Evidence 201

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 to prove loss causation, a plaintiff must allege "that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security"

Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test