§Why CasetextPricing

Janssen v. OppenheimerFunds, Inc. et al

REPLY to Response to 87 MOTION to Dismiss

45 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,697 times   365 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  2. Conley v. Gibson

    355 U.S. 41 (1957)   Cited 58,508 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

  3. 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"

  4. Oran v. Stafford

    226 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2000)   Cited 628 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts can take judicial notice of authenticated versions of publicly available documents filed with a regulatory agency

  5. 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"

  6. Jojola v. Chavez

    55 F.3d 488 (10th Cir. 1995)   Cited 459 times
    Holding that a court is limited to assessing the legal sufficiency of the allegations contained within the four corners of the complaint

  7. Berson v. Applied Signal

    527 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 283 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding risk disclosure was insufficient where company warned revenue could fall short of projection, but omitted that it had already had its revenue stream "immediately interrupt[ed]" by stop-work orders

  8. 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)

  9. Castellano v. Young Rubicam, Inc.

    257 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 240 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to sustain a common law cause of action in the context of securities fraud would be inconsistent with the Attorney–General's exclusive enforcement powers under the Martin Act

  10. Rubke v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd.

    551 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 193 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of motive and opportunity were not enough to create a strong inference of scienter

  11. 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

  12. Section 771 - Comptroller General, powers and duties

    15 U.S.C. § 771   Cited 691 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Allowing private cause of action for violations of § 77e

  13. Section 270.8b-16 - Amendments to registration statement

    17 C.F.R. § 270.8b-16   Cited 1 times

    (a) Every registered management investment company which is required to file an annual report on Form N-CEN, as prescribed by § 270.30a-1 of this chaptershall amend the registration statement required pursuant to Section 8(b) by filing, not more than 120 days after the close of each fiscal year ending on or after the date upon which such registration statement was filed, the appropriate form prescribed for such amendments. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to a registered closed-end