544 U.S. 336 (2005) Cited 3,057 times 66 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”
Holding that, where plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to exercise "due care" in the design of a railroad project, plaintiff's negligence allegations were "merely a restatement, albeit in slightly different language, of the 'implied' contractual obligations asserted in the cause of action for breach of contract. Moreover, the damages plaintiff allegedly sustained as a consequence of defendant's violation of a 'duty of due care' in designing the project were clearly within contemplation of the written agreement."
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"