29 Cited authorities

Phillips v. County of Allegheny
515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 16,815 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile
California Public Employees' Retirement System v. Chubb Corp.
394 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 1,246 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA's heightened pleading requirements apply to Section 14 claims, at least where such claims are based on allegations of fraud
In re Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc.
311 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2002) Cited 1,342 times
Holding that a plaintiff must set forth the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged fraud
Phillips v. LCI International, Inc.
190 F.3d 609 (4th Cir. 1999) Cited 1,114 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a court may consider [a document attached to a motion to dismiss] in determining whether to dismiss the complaint [when] it was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and [when] the plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity.”
In re Advanta Corp. Securities Litigation
180 F.3d 525 (3d Cir. 1999) Cited 633 times
Holding that plaintiffs "may not rest on a bare inference that a defendant `must have had' knowledge of the facts."
Winer Family Trust v. Queen
503 F.3d 319 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 477 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the group pleading doctrine is not applicable to those that are not officers or directors of the at-issue company
Instit. Investors Group v. Avaya, Inc.
564 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2009) Cited 418 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the 'on track' and 'position us' portions of the [] statements, when read in context, cannot meaningfully be distinguished from the future projection of which they are a part"
Cozzarelli v. Inspire
549 F.3d 618 (4th Cir. 2008) Cited 379 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court did not err in dismissing claims with prejudice it was “clear that amendment would be futile in light of the fundamental deficiencies in plaintiffs' theory of liability”
Gen. Partner Glenn Tongue v. Sanofi
816 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016) Cited 288 times 11 Legal Analyses
Finding that pharmaceutical company's expression of "even exceptional optimism" about a drug's approval was not misleading and thus not actionable, even in light of FDA's repeated concerns about the company's methodology
Or. Pub. Emps. Ret. Fund v. Apollo Grp. Inc.
774 F.3d 598 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 252 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of loss causation must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) ’s heightened "particularity" requirement
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 156,162 times 193 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Bauer v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

29 Cited authorities

Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

Holding Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA's heightened pleading requirements apply to Section 14 claims, at least where such claims are based on allegations of fraud

Holding that a plaintiff must set forth the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged fraud

Holding that “a court may consider [a document attached to a motion to dismiss] in determining whether to dismiss the complaint [when] it was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and [when] the plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity.”

Holding that plaintiffs "may not rest on a bare inference that a defendant `must have had' knowledge of the facts."

Holding that the group pleading doctrine is not applicable to those that are not officers or directors of the at-issue company

Holding that "the 'on track' and 'position us' portions of the [] statements, when read in context, cannot meaningfully be distinguished from the future projection of which they are a part"

Holding that a district court did not err in dismissing claims with prejudice it was “clear that amendment would be futile in light of the fundamental deficiencies in plaintiffs' theory of liability”

Finding that pharmaceutical company's expression of "even exceptional optimism" about a drug's approval was not misleading and thus not actionable, even in light of FDA's repeated concerns about the company's methodology

Holding that allegations of loss causation must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) ’s heightened "particularity" requirement

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."