544 U.S. 336 (2005) Cited 3,615 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”
563 U.S. 2011 (2011) Cited 1,422 times 59 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs had adequately pled a Rule 10b–5 claim—where defendant had disputed the sufficiency of the allegations with respect to the elements of scienter and materiality—by alleging that defendant had forestalled a stock price drop by making affirmative statements confirming the market's impression that defendant's leading product was safe, despite defendant's awareness of evidence suggesting a significant risk that the nasal spray led to loss of sense of smell; when the risk was finally (belatedly) disclosed, the stock price plummeted
Holding that warnings "d[id] not qualify as meaningful cautionary language" because they "did not disclose that defendants knew from past experience that the [risks] posed an imminent threat of business and financial ruin and that some damage from these risks had already materialized"
Holding section 78u-4(b) does not literally require pleading of all facts, so long as facts pleaded provide adequate basis for believing statements were false
Holding that “a court, when considering a motion to dismiss in a securities fraud case, may take judicial notice . . . of relevant public documents required to be filed with the SEC”
Holding that plaintiff must do more than recite statutory elements in conclusory fashion and instead, must proffer enough factual content to raise a right to relief above the speculative level
Holding that “[d]efendants whose fraud prevents preexisting inflation in a stock price from dissipating are just as liable as defendants whose fraud introduces inflation into the stock price in the first instance”