8 Cited authorities

Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.
552 U.S. 312 (2008) Cited 1,031 times 62 Legal Analyses
Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”
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"
Lowe v. Securities & Exchange Commission
472 U.S. 181 (1985) Cited 178 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that Congress could not have intended to include publishers of impersonal investment advice within the definition of "investment adviser" under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 because doing so would have violated the First Amendment
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
651 F. Supp. 2d 155 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Cited 108 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's repeated representations did not evidence an intent to permit a third party to enforce a contract where the contract itself did not evidence such intent
Reich v. Purcell
67 Cal.2d 551 (Cal. 1967) Cited 261 times
Holding that California had no interest in applying its laws to suit involving automobile accident that occurred in Missouri when plaintiffs were domiciled in Ohio, not California
Compuware v. Moody's
499 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2007) Cited 65 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that where the credit rating was "dependent on a subjective and discretionary weighing of complex factors," the rating itself did not "communicate[] any provably false factual connotation"
In re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc.
580 F. Supp. 2d 630 (S.D. Ohio 2008) Cited 20 times
Finding no strong inference of scienter where red flag allegation was attributable to a fellow defendant's predecessor
Dutciuc v. Meritage Homes of Arizona, Inc.
No. CV-09-866-PHX-MHM (D. Ariz. Dec. 9, 2009)
No. CV-09-866-PHX-MHM. December 9, 2009 ORDER MARY MURGUIA, District Judge Currently before the Court is Defendant Meritage Homes of Arizona's Motion to Dismiss, or In the Alternative, to Compel Arbitration, (Dkt. #58) and Motion to Request to Transform its Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings (Dkt. #61). After reviewing the pleadings, and determining that oral argument is unnecessary, the Court issues the following Order. I: PROCEDURAL HISTORY The instant case was originally

Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund et al v. Standard & Poor's Financial Services, LLC et al

8 Cited authorities

Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”

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"

Holding that Congress could not have intended to include publishers of impersonal investment advice within the definition of "investment adviser" under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 because doing so would have violated the First Amendment

Holding that a defendant's repeated representations did not evidence an intent to permit a third party to enforce a contract where the contract itself did not evidence such intent

Holding that California had no interest in applying its laws to suit involving automobile accident that occurred in Missouri when plaintiffs were domiciled in Ohio, not California

Holding that where the credit rating was "dependent on a subjective and discretionary weighing of complex factors," the rating itself did not "communicate[] any provably false factual connotation"

Finding no strong inference of scienter where red flag allegation was attributable to a fellow defendant's predecessor