§Why CasetextPricing

Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund et al v. Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc. et al

REPLY memorandum of law

27 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

    745 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir. 1984)   Cited 2,360 times
    Holding that a complaint may not be amended by briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss

  3. ECA & Local 134 Ibew Joint Pension Trust v. Jp Morgan Chase Co.

    553 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 909 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements that the defendant "'set the standard' for 'integrity' and that it would 'continue to reposition and strengthen [its] franchises with a focus on financial discipline'" were nonactionable puffery given their generality

  4. Pugh v. Tribune

    521 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 533 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Stoneridge precluded primary liability for an insider at Tribune

  5. Operating Local 649 Annuity Trust Fund v. Smith Barney Fund Management LLC

    595 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 397 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint must set forth "a plausible set of facts sufficient 'to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'"

  6. Slayton v. American Express Co.

    604 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 337 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding cautionary language that is misleading in light of historical fact cannot be meaningful

  7. Makor v. Tellabs

    513 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 350 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, while it would be better to have named sources, "the absence of proper names does not invalidate the drawing of a strong inference from [the confidential witnesses]' assertions"

  8. Harris v. Ivax Corp.

    182 F.3d 799 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 418 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where all allegedly false statements were identified as forward-looking statements and accompanied by cautionary language, "the defendant's state of mind is irrelevant"

  9. Makor Issues Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc.

    437 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2006)   Cited 204 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant's statement was material when he claimed the demand for the company's product was strong

  10. Raab v. General Physics Corp.

    4 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 1993)   Cited 246 times
    Holding similar statement predicting future growth not material because "the market price of a share is not inflated by vague statements predicting growth"

  11. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,889 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

  12. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,460 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

  13. Section 78u-5 - Application of safe harbor for forward-looking statements

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-5   Cited 1,258 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Noting that under the statutory safe harbor, a defendant may avoid liability for any forward-looking statement that is false or misleading if the statement is "identified as a forward-looking statement, and is accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement"

  14. Section 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices

    17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5   Cited 9,193 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any person who "make any untrue statement of material fact"