544 U.S. 336 (2005) Cited 3,057 times 66 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 925 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs alleged a strong inference when defendant issued a misleading press release suggesting its over-the-counter pharmaceutical product did not cause anosmia, defendant had not tested its product for anosmia, there was insufficient scientific evidence at the time to determine whether it caused anosmia, and defendant had informed an independent scientist that it had hired a consultant to review the product out of concern over anosmia, asked that scientist to participate in animal studies, prohibited another scientist from using the product's name when he presented a study showing that the product caused anosmia, and organized a "a panel of physicians and scientists in response to [his] presentation"
Holding that the "district court did not err when it dismissed [a private securities plaintiff's second amended putative class action complaint] with prejudice, since it was clear that the plaintiffs had made their best case and had been found wanting"
Holding that stock sales of individual defendants are only indicative of scienter where they are "dramatically out of line with prior trading practices" (quoting In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig., 886 F.2d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 1989))
Holding that plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation where plaintiffs' theory was that "Corinthian's fraud was revealed to the market, causing Metzler's losses" but "[t]he TAC does not allege that the June 24 and August 2 announcements disclosed—or even suggested—[the fraudulent activities] to the market"