You may remember the article I wrote back in March about the Invision Technologies securities class action. That article, entitled Try Try Again, featured Judge Martin J. Jenkins (N.D. Cal.) gleefully (OK, I added the gleefully part) tossing the case. At the time, I commented that “all may not be lost,” as “Judge Jenkins is going to allow Plaintiffs to submit another amended complaint, but warned that ‘vague assertions and allegations, scattered throughout Plaintiffs' Complaint will not serve to meet their PLSRA burden.’”
Well, here we are in Round II, and Judge Jenkins sure doesn’t seem satisfied. In throwing the case out for good, he says that “for obvious reasons it would have been impossible for Defendants to have disclosed violations that they were not aware of,” and “as a matter of logic it makes little sense to read Defendants' statement as affirming the non-existence unknown violations.”
I’d tell you more, but what’s the point really? This goose appears cooked.
You can read In re Invision, issued August 31, 2006 at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76458.
Nugget: “Plaintiffs have plead no specific allegations indicating that Defendants knew of facts at the time that this statement was made such that it would render this statement false.”