In Re SCB Computer Technology, Inc., Securities Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Carol Novak v. Sally Frame · Joel Rothman v. Andrew Gregor
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is, by itself, insufficient to state a securities fraud claim”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n this case, however, the Complaint goes well beyond merely alleging that MicroStrategy misapplied accounting principles that, consequently, the Company had to restate its financials. It does so by alleging in some detail the magnitude of the restated financials and the pervasiveness and repetitiveness of MicroStrategy’s GAAP violations; the simplicity of the accounting principles violated in this case; and the importance of the contracts involved. This contextual background serves to amplify the inference of scienter to be drawn from MicroStrategy’s GAAP violations and restatement of financials.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a plaintiff must state facts that, if true, would compel or forcefully suggest that a given defendant acted `with the required state of mind. A plaintiff need not disprove every conceivable rationale a defendant might put forward to explain why a particular statement was made. However, if the facts alleged do not exclude other plausible explanations that would undercut a plaintiffs circumstantial evidence of scienter, then that plaintiffs facts cannot be fairly said to raise a "strong inference" that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.