Loos v. Immersion Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
762 F.3d 880 · 2014
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. · Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo · Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp. · Nursing Home Pension Fund, Local 144 v. Oracle Corp. · Metzler Investment GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any decline in a corporation's share price following the announcement of an investigation can only be attributed to market speculation about whether fraud has occurred. This type of speculation cannot[, on its own,] form the basis of a viable loss causation theory.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“without more, is insufficient to constitute a[n] [actionable] disclosure for purposes of § 10(b).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Broadly speaking, loss causation refers to the causal relationship between a material misrepresentation and the economic loss suffered by an investor. [Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342 , 125 S.Ct. 1627 , 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005)]. Ultimately, a securities fraud plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s misrepresentation was a “substantial cause” of his or her financial loss. In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 1025 (9th Cir.2005). At the pleading stage, however, the plaintiff need only allege that the decline in the defendant’s stock'price was proximately caused by a revelation of fraudulent activity rather than by changing market conditions, changing investor expectations, or other unrelated factors. Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1062 (9th Cir.2008). In other words, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendant’s fraud was “revealed to the market and caused the resulting losses.” Id. at 1063 (emphasis added).”
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.