holding “[b]ecause, by their very nature, predictions of the future are less certain than statements about past events, courts have been less apt to find forward-looking statements material and have been more dubious of claims that it was reasonable for investors to rely upon such statements in making trading decisions.”
How later courts described this case
- holding “[b]ecause, by their very nature, predictions of the future are less certain than statements about past events, courts have been less apt to find forward-looking statements material and have been more dubious of claims that it was reasonable for investors to rely upon such statements in making trading decisions.”
- evaluating the motivations for each individual who sold EPL stock during the relevant period and concluding that none were motivated by any nonpublic Company information
- clarifying the elements a plaintiff must show to prevail on a Brophy claim
- “[T]he use of equity as a compensation tool is a legitimate choice under our law and Delaware statutory law permits and its common law creates incentives for stockholders to serve as directors and officers.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
872 A.2d 960 (2005)
IN RE ORACLE CORP. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION,
BARONE v. ORACLE CORP.
No. 561, 2004.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
April 14, 2005.
Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.