In Re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation. P. Gregory Buchanan, Jacob Turner and Ronald Abramoff
- Decided
- June 10, 1997
- Docket
- 96-5187
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,496 timesAbrogated on other grounds (verified)Abrogated on other grounds (verified) · SIDES v. FISCUS HEARING EXAMINER
What later courts said
- holding that district court may consider documents "integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint” in deciding motions to dismiss — Benak v. Alliance Capital Management L.P. (2004)
- holding that a court may consider a “document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint” — John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) v. Pittsburgh Regional Transit (2023)
- holding that a court may deny leave to amend for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility — Moratis v. West Penn Multi-List, Inc. (2024)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION OF THE COURT ALITO, Circuit Judge.
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation (“BCF ”), a Delaware corporation based in New Jersey, announced its fourth quarter and full fiscal year results for 1994 on September 20, 1994. The results were below the investment community’s expectations, and BCF’s common stock fell sharply, losing approximately 30% in one day. Within a day of the initial announcement, the first investor suit was filed. In the next few days, the company made additional explanatory disclosures, and the stock price fell even further. More investor suits were filed. The action at hand is the product of the consolidation of these suits.
BCF and certain of its principal officers and directors were sued under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a). Section 10(b) provides a broad prohibition on the use of “manipulative or deceptive devices” in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). Section 20, in turn, provides liability for “controlling persons.” 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a). Plaintiffs assert that they represent the class of investors who purchased BCF common stock between October 4,1993, and September 23, 1994. Plaintiffs claim that, as a result of BCF’s misleading statements and omissions during the class period, the company’s stock price was artificially inflated.
Statutes cited
Cite this
In Re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation. P. Gregory Buchanan, Jacob Turner and Ronald Abramoff, 114 F.3d 1410 (1997)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.