In Re BISYS Securities Litigation’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the rigors of Rule 9(b), which requires that averments of fraud be made with particularity.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 699 F. Supp. 2d 655 - Securities and Exchange Commission v. ESPUELAS · LaMonica v. Tilton (In re Transcare Corp.)

2. “The significance of insider transactions in the scienter analysis is what, if anything, they suggest about the likely intent of the insiders. The gross proceeds, standing alone, tell us very little. Far more significant is the extent to which sales ahead of disclosure of negative news or purchases ahead of the disclosure of positive news lead logically to the conclusion that the insiders were aware of the news at the times of the transactions. For example, a sale of a large proportion of an insider’s holdings shortly before disclosure of negative news that has a substantial downward impact on the share price suggests one thing while a sale of a small proportion of an insider’s holdings comparably prior to disclosure of such news suggests something else. And while the gross proceeds may be relevant to scienter, they are not very probative where, as here, the complaint is essentially devoid of other factual allegations indicative of culpable knowledge or intent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 499 F. Supp. 2d 117 - Malin v. XL Capital Ltd.

3. “To the extent that the Complaint alleges that the ‘press releases issued during the [thirteen quarters] were false [be cause] they reported, discussed, or analyzed figures that subsequently were restated as well as any financial statistics derived from restated figures,’ such statements are adequately pleaded to be false. Thus, Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded the falsity of statements in the press releases that report, discuss, or analyze Aspen’s false financial results with respect to [Evans]. The Court need not determine, however, whether each of Evans’s quoted remarks are actually false, because, as discussed below, the Complaint fails adequately to plead Evans’s scienter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 633 F. Supp. 2d 15 - 380544 CANADA, INC. v. Aspen Technology, Inc.