772 F. Supp. 2d 573 - Glaser v. The9, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “mere fact that insider stock sales occurred does not suffice ... plaintiffs must [instead] establish that the sales were 'unusual' or 'suspicious.' " In re Gildan Activewear, Inc. Sec. Litig. , 636 F.Supp.2d 261 , 270 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Whether trading is unusual or suspicious turns on a number of factors: (1) the amount of net profits realized from the sales; (2) the percentages of holdings sold; (3) the change in volume of insider defendant's sales; (4) the number of insider defendants selling; (5) whether sales occurred soon after statements defendants are alleged to have known were misleading; (6) whether sales occurred shortly before corrective disclosures or materialization of the alleged risk; and (7) whether sales were made pursuant to trading plans such as Rule 10b5-1 plans. Glaser , 772 F.Supp.2d at 587 . Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that Defendants' stock sales are unusual. Acito v. IMCERA Grp. , 47 F.3d 47 , 54 (2d Cir. 1995). The Complaint depicts the glaring disparity in Link and Vahanian's trading activity between the Class Period and the months preceding and following the Class Period (the "Control Period”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nguyen v. New Link Genetics Corp.

2. “It is questionable whether the “core operations” doctrine has survived the PSLRA at all. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension —Annuity Trust Fund v. Arbitron, Inc., 741 F.Supp.2d 474, 490 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (Koeltl, J.) (“Whether a plaintiff may rely on the core operations doctrine in light of the PSLRA has not been decided by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Those Courts of Appeals that have addressed the question have found that it is no longer viable in most situations.” (internal citation omitted) (citing Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digi marc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1000 (9th Cir.2009) (rejecting “core operations” doctrine); Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 867 (5th Cir.2003) (same))).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 814 F. Supp. 2d 323 - Tyler v. Liz Claiborne, Inc.

3. “must be described in the complaint with sufficient particularity to support the probability that a person in the position occupied by the source would possess the information alleged.... Indeed, even confidential high level executives' statements will be insufficient absent some allegation that the witness communicated with the individual defendants claimed against in the case, or else that the witness was privy to the individual defendants’ knowledge.” Glaser v. The9, Ltd., 772 F.Supp.2d 573, 589-90 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). What is-more,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 814 F. Supp. 2d 323 - Tyler v. Liz Claiborne, Inc.