53 Cited authorities

Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights
551 U.S. 308 (2007) Cited 9,114 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (1996) Cited 14,270 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prisoner must show an actual injury to state a claim for denial of access to courts
Pinter v. Dahl
486 U.S. 622 (1988) Cited 859 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that only a statutory "seller" may be liable under § 12 of Securities Act
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc.
551 U.S. 587 (2007) Cited 459 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiffs do not have standing to assert “their claim ... that, having paid lawfully collected taxes into the Federal Treasury at some point, they have a continuing, legally cognizable interest in ensuring that those funds are not used by the Government in a way that violates the Constitution”
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
Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg
501 U.S. 1083 (1991) Cited 609 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 14 liability may not be established on "mere disbelief or undisclosed motive without any demonstration that the proxy statement was false or misleading"
Tal v. Hogan
453 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2006) Cited 1,378 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "because the extensiveness of the threat is a question of fact" the court would "assume for the purposes of this opinion that the predicate acts alleged ... establish a pattern of racketeering activity"
In re Citigroup Inc. Shareholder
964 A.2d 106 (Del. Ch. 2009) Cited 363 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding the Rales test applies "to show demand futility where the subject of the derivative suit is not a business decision of the board"
IN RE DONALD J. TRUMP CASINO SECURITIES LIT
7 F.3d 357 (3d Cir. 1993) Cited 514 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding an omitted fact is material if there is "substantial likelihood that a reasonable [investor] would consider it important in deciding how to act"
Grossman v. Novell, Inc.
120 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 1997) Cited 372 times
Holding that a company's general claims that it offered "a compelling set of opportunities" and had "experienced substantial success" were "soft, puffing statements, incapable of objective verification" for purposes of 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)
Section 77k - Civil liabilities on account of false registration statement
15 U.S.C. § 77k Cited 2,113 times 85 Legal Analyses
Holding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing
Section 77 - Discrimination against neutral Americans in time of war
15 U.S.C. § 77 Cited 1,802 times 12 Legal Analyses
Granting right of recovery to " any person acquiring such security (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition he knew of such untruth or omission)"
Section 77m - Limitation of actions
15 U.S.C. § 77m Cited 954 times 29 Legal Analyses
Establishing a one-year statute of limitations for §§ 11 and 12 claims which begins to run upon "the discovery of the untrue statement or omission, or after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence"
Section 80a-5 - Subclassification of management companies
15 U.S.C. § 80a-5 Cited 22 times
(a) Open-end and closed-end companies For the purposes of this subchapter, management companies are divided into open-end and closed-end companies, defined as follows: (1) "Open-end company" means a management company which is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. (2) "Closed-end company" means any management company other than an open-end company. (b) Diversified and non-diversified companies Management companies are further divided into diversified

Ferguson v. OppenheimerFunds, Inc. et al

53 Cited authorities

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

Holding that a prisoner must show an actual injury to state a claim for denial of access to courts

Holding that only a statutory "seller" may be liable under § 12 of Securities Act

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 that § 14 liability may not be established on "mere disbelief or undisclosed motive without any demonstration that the proxy statement was false or misleading"

Holding that "because the extensiveness of the threat is a question of fact" the court would "assume for the purposes of this opinion that the predicate acts alleged ... establish a pattern of racketeering activity"

Holding the Rales test applies "to show demand futility where the subject of the derivative suit is not a business decision of the board"

Holding an omitted fact is material if there is "substantial likelihood that a reasonable [investor] would consider it important in deciding how to act"

Holding that a company's general claims that it offered "a compelling set of opportunities" and had "experienced substantial success" were "soft, puffing statements, incapable of objective verification" for purposes of 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)

Holding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing

Granting right of recovery to " any person acquiring such security (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition he knew of such untruth or omission)"

Establishing a one-year statute of limitations for §§ 11 and 12 claims which begins to run upon "the discovery of the untrue statement or omission, or after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence"