153 F. Supp. 2d 300 - DeMaria v. Andersen’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 772 · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. · Pinter v. Dahl · Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) If a filer includes graphic, image or audio material in a document delivered to investors and others that cannot be reproduced in an electronic filing, the electronically filed version of that document shall include a fair and accurate narrative description, tabular representation or transcript of the omitted material .... (b)(1) The graphic, image and audio material in the version of a document delivered to investors and others shall be deemed part of the electronic filing and subject to the liability and anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. (2) Narrative descriptions, tabular representations or transcripts of graphic, image and audio material included in an electronic filing or appendix thereto also shall be deemed part of the filing. However, to the extent such descriptions, representations or transcripts represent a good faith effort to fairly and accurately describe omitted graphic, image or audio material, they shall not be subject to the liability and anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. DeMaria v. Andersen“the quarterly 1998 net revenues disclosed in the [EDGAR] Prospectus show an increase of 2[7]% from $9[5]0,000 for the first quarter ended March 31, 1998 to $1,203,000 for the second quarter ended June 30, 1998; a 3[2]% increase to $1,583,000 for the third quarter ended September 30, 1998; and a 19% increase to $1,886,000 for the fourth quarter ended December 31,1998. Only by improperly rounding the quarterly figures do plaintiffs manufacture the theory of 25% quarter-to-quarter revenue growth. Moreover, ILife’s reported first quarter 1999 revenues of $2,226,000 reflect an 18% increase from the prior quarter and a 134% increase from the corresponding period of the prior year. Thus, not only was there no trend of 25% growth, there was no reversal of a growth trend.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. DeMaria v. Andersen“period-to-period comparisons of [ILife’s] results of operations may not be meaningful, and you should not rely on past periods as indicators of future performance. In future periods, [ILife’s] results of operations may fall below the expectations of securities analysts and investors, which could adversely affect the trading price of the common stock. [ILife’s] stock price may be volatile in the future.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. DeMaria v. Andersen
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.