You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S REGISTRATION STATEMENT...
,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S REGISTRATION STATEMENT CONTAINED FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS WHICH INDUCED PLAINTIFF TO BUY STOCK IN DEFENDANT’S CORPORATION; THE CLAIMS IN DEFENDANT’S REGISTRATION STATEMENT WERE MERE PUFFERY AND WERE NOT ACTIONABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE SECURITES ACT OF 1933 (FIRST DEPT).

he First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging several violations of the Securities Act of 1933 should have been dismissed. The complaint alleged that it was induced to buy stock by defendant’s registration statement. The First Department concluded the statements not false or misleading and therefore were not actionable:

The … registration statement … includes the following statements: “We believe we have created a financially strong company built upon a foundation of three thriving, independent brands with significant global growth potential.” “New product development is a key driver of the long-term success of our brands. We believe the development of new products can drive traffic by expanding our customer base.” “We face intense competition in our markets, which could negatively impact our business. . . Our ability to compete will depend on the success of our plans to improve existing products, to develop and roll-out new products, [and] to effectively respond to consumer preferences.” * * *

… [T]he statements were nonactionable immaterial puffery and/or nonactionable opinion … .

The statements did not become misleading by omission as a result of a failure to disclose a slight decline in “same-store sales” for a single quarter’s sales … . City of Warwick Mun. Empls. Pension Fund v Restaurant Brands Intl. Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06315, First Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: Statements which are mere puffery are not actionable violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Here plaintiff alleged false and misleading claims in defendant corporation’s registration statement induced plaintiff to buy defendant corporation’s stock. Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT WAIVE HIS CLIENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE HIM ATTEND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION BY SENDING HIS PARALEGAL, WHO WAS TURNED AWAY; DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD HIS PRESENCE WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO FILE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITHIN 20 DAYS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; SERVICE IS DEEMED COMPLETE 10 DAYS AFTER FILING A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITH THE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE (FIRST DEPT). ​
FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENSE ABOUT A SECOND EYEWITNESS TO THE SHOOTING WAS A REVERSIBLE BRADY VIOLATION, THE MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT ADVISE IT OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WHICH EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATED THE OPTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR $11.4 MILLION IF THE LANDLORD RECEIVES A BONA FIDE PURCHASE OFFER; THE LANDLORD IN FACT RECEIVED SUCH AN OFFER AND PLAINITFF EXERCISED ITS OPTION, BUT PAID $14.5 MILLION (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMANDED; DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT BY PLEADING GUILTY TO A PROBATION VIOLATION HE WAS GIVING UP HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING; APPEAL CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BG, AN ADOLESCENT OFFENDER (AO) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “RAISE THE AGE... PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REPRESENT ITSELF IN ITS SUIT...