977 F. Supp. 1031 - Powers v. Eichen’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · Hebert v. Brown · Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the clear understanding of the managers that Congress did not, in adopting the [PSLRA], intend to alter the standards of liability under the Exchange Act. The managers understand, however, that certain Federal district courts have interpreted the [PSLRA] as having altered the scienter requirement. In that regard, the managers again emphasize that the clear intent in 1995 and our continuing intent in this legislation is that neither the [PSLRA] nor [the Standards Act] in any way alters the scienter standard in Federal securities fraud suits. Additionally, it was the intent of Congress ... that the [PSLRA] establish a heightened uniform Federal standard on pleading requirements based upon the pleading standard applied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Indeed, the express language of the [PSLRA] itself carefully provides that plaintiffs must “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.” The Managers emphasize that neither the [PSLRA] nor [the Standards Act] makes any attempt to define that state of mind.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Plaintiffs ‘complaint must contain allegations that ... [a particular defendant] either participated in the day to day corporate activities or had a special relationship with the corporation, such as participating in, preparing, or communicating group information at particular times. This doctrine is limited to group published information; it does not hold individual defendants hable for analysts’ reports or oral remarks made by others.”
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.