VIEW TREE
ICON KEY
697:false:false:false:false:false:false:true:false:false:!:false:-1:-1
Factors bearing on whether insider trading was unusual or suspicious such as suggests an insider's scienter in a Rule 10b-5 claim.
Add Comment
Contributed in 2008 by David Gold
Browse from Only if unusual or suspicious
Law
»
Commerce, labor, particular activities & industries
»
Securities
»
Liability & enforcement
»
Fraud claims
»
SEC Rule 10b-5
»
Procedure
»
District court
»
Pleadings
»
Pleading standards
»
Special issues
»
Pleading scienter
»
Private civil actions seeking damages
»
Plead w/ particularity allegations supporting strong inference
»
Strength
»
Strength of particular inferences
»
Against defendant
»
From nature of statements &/or actions
»
Insider trading
»
Only if unusual or suspicious
»
Factors: Factors bearing on whether...
Narrow Down
»
»
Contribution Suggestions
vouch for authority for rule...
Although it heightened the pleading standard, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 did not alter the substance of the the scienter...Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Integrated Electric Services, Inc., 497 F.3d 546, 551 (5th Cir. 2007).
in support of
Although it heightened the pleading standard, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 did not alter the substance of the the scienter element of a Rule 10b-5 claim.vouch for authority for rule...
Where a defendant falsely states that it has sufficient resources to serve its expected future needs, the safe harbor provision of the Private...In re Stone & Webster, Inc., Securities Litigation, 414 F.3d 187, 213 (1st Cir. 2005).
in support of
Where a defendant falsely states that it has sufficient resources to serve its expected future needs, the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5, protects the defendant, if at all, only from liability for misstating its future needs, not from liability for misstating its current resources.vouch for authority for rule...
The need for individual calculations of reliance generally do not stand in the way of a finding of predominance in support of class certification...See Goldwater v. Alston & Bird, 116 F.R.D. 342, 355 (S.D. Ill. 1987) (granting motion for class certification).
in support of
The need for individual calculations of reliance generally do not stand in the way of a finding of predominance in support of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) in Rule 10b-5 actions.