53 F. Supp. 2d 1236 - Karacand v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 district ·

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.

1. “(1) a misleading statement or omission of a material fact; (2) made in connection with the purchase or sale of securities; (3) with intent to defraud or recklessness; (4) reliance; and (5) damages.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 192 F. Supp. 2d 1261 - Spiegel v. Tenfold Corp. · 195 F. Supp. 2d 1304 - Pirraglia v. Novell, Inc.

2. “The Safe Harbor provides that a defendant shall not be liable for a forward-looking statement if it “is identified as a forward-looking statement and is accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l)(A). As defined in the statute, a “forward-looking statement” is a projection of financial items, a description of manage- merit’s plans and objectives for future operations or economic performance, or the stated assumptions underlying these projections. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(i)(l). The Safe Harbor does not apply to the extent a statement was made by a person or entity having actual knowledge that it was false or misleading. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l)(B). “Cautionary statements” are considered “meaningful” if they “convey substantive information about factors that realistically could cause results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statement, such as, for example, information about the issuer’s business” (citation omitted). However, the “failure to include the particular factor that ultimately causes the forward-looking statement not to come true will not mean that the statement is not protected by the safe harbor” (citation omitted). Courts must determine, at the pleading state, whether a company’s forward-looking statements fall within the Safe Harbor. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(e).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 112 F. Supp. 2d 1251 - Caprin v. Simon Transportation Services