§Why CasetextPricing

In re Charles Schwab Corp. Securities Litigation

Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Negative Causation; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof

28 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 235,819 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 215,979 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  3. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,544 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”

  4. Herman MacLean v. Huddleston

    459 U.S. 375 (1983)   Cited 1,310 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an express remedy under § 11 of the 1933 Act for misleading registration statements did not preclude an overlapping implied private cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act

  5. Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green

    430 U.S. 462 (1977)   Cited 1,063 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

  6. Sparling v. Daou

    411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 1,283 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that scienter is an element of § 10(b) claim

  7. In re Worlds of Wonder Securities Litigation

    35 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 350 times
    Holding that the bespeaks caution doctrine applies when the defendants' forward-looking representations contain sufficient cautionary language

  8. Caremark, Inc. v. Coram Healthcare Corp.

    113 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 1997)   Cited 210 times
    Holding this assertion sufficiently alleges loss causation

  9. Robbins v. Koger Properties, Inc.

    116 F.3d 1441 (11th Cir. 1997)   Cited 192 times
    Holding that loss causation requires plaintiffs to show that the “price inflation was removed from the market price of stock, causing plaintiffs a loss”

  10. In re Subclass

    558 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir. 2009)   Cited 104 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that loss causation was not established when a plaintiff failed to show that losses following public disclosures could be "reliably attributed to the revelation of fraud rather than to other factors"

  11. Section 77k - Civil liabilities on account of false registration statement

    15 U.S.C. § 77k   Cited 2,111 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

  12. Section 77l - Civil liabilities arising in connection with prospectuses and communications

    15 U.S.C. § 77l   Cited 819 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing relief if the offering documents contain just one untrue statement of material fact