Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co.

    228 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 987 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test

    The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. See Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co., 56 F. Supp.2d 222 (D.Conn. 1999). Focusing on the issue of materiality, the court quoted a newspaper article which observed that "`[m]ost auditors — and their corporate clients — define materiality as any event or news that might affect a company's earnings, positively or negatively, by 3% to 10%. . . . [it] has become standard practice in corporate America.

  2. In re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation

    551 F. Supp. 2d 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)   Cited 136 times
    Holding that the disclosure of an SEC investigation was a partial corrective disclosure when it was followed by a corporate officer's plea of guilty to charges of backdating options

    Instead, Ganino noted that the lower court had relied upon this reasoning. 228 F.3d 166 (citing Ganino v. Citizens Utils. Co., 56 F. Supp. 2d 222, 227 (D. Conn. 1999)).

  3. In re Newell Rubbermaid Inc. v. Newell Rubbermaid Inc.

    Case No. 99 C 6853 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2000)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that statements that merger was "an exceptional strategic fit"; that the combined companies' products "will be attractive to consumers"; that merger was a "major development" in company's growth strategy; and references to synergies that management expected to result from the merger because they "contain no useful information upon which a reasonable investor would base a decision to invest"

    The Second Circuit recently reversed a district court's dismissal on materiality grounds of a securities fraud action, holding that the district court had erred in relying exclusively on comparison of the magnitude of misreported financial figures with overall revenues. Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co., 228 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000), reversing 56 F. Supp.2d 222 (D. Coma. 1999). We do not rely on such a "single numerical benchmark."

  4. In re Newell Rubbermaid Inc. Securities Litigation

    Case No. 99 C 6853 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2000)   Cited 1 times

    There is ample authority supporting the proposition that when it is clear that a particular financial misstatement could not possibly be significant to a reasonable investor due to its small magnitude, a court may properly determine on a motion to dismiss that the misstatement was immaterial as a matter of law. See Parnes, 122 F.3d at 547 (overstatement of assets by $6.8 million, 2% of company's total assets, immaterial as a matter of law); Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 633 n. 26 (1st Cir. 1996) (overstatement of revenues by 3%-9% immaterial); Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co., 56 F. Supp.2d 222, 227 (D. Conn. 1999) (1.7% overstatement of revenue immaterial). The prospectus disclosed that Rubbermaid had revenues exceeding $2.3 billion per year in 1996 and 1997, and that its 1998 revenues were on track to match or exceed that amount.