210 F. Supp. 2d 755 - Arnlund v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 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) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21e of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“more than rely on a change in the Company’s position to infer fraud; they set out in painstaking detail when Defendants were made aware of material information, based on the Company’s own meeting minutes. This detail, coupled with the length of time that elapsed between the dissemination of the Annual Report and public disclosure of the Company’s financial condition, may give rise to an inference of fraud. Compare In re Criimi Mae, Inc. Sec. Litig., 94 F.Supp.2d 652, 662 (D.Md.2000)(“Mere proximity in time between optimistic or reassuring statements about a company’s prospects and filing for bankruptcy protection does not give rise to a strong inference of scienter when, as here, the event that forced the company to seek bankruptcy protection did not occur until after the statements were made.”)(emphasis added). Precisely what sent the Company into bankruptcy is a question of fact that is unknown to the Court at this time. Plaintiffs have adequately pled that Defendants knew the Company was headed in that direction before May 30, 2000.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange, (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
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.