Question: Matrixx Initiatives Inc makes and sells over the counter pharmaceutical products
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., makes and sells over- the-counter pharmaceutical products. Its core brand is Zicam, which accounts for 70 percent of its sales. Matrixx received reports that some consumers had lost their sense of smell (a condition called anosmia) after using Zicam Cold Remedy. Four product liability suits were filed against Matrixx, seeking damages for anosmia. In public statements relating to revenues and product safety, however, Matrixx did not reveal this information. James Siracusano and other Matrixx investors filed a suit in a federal district court against the company and its executives under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b- 5, claiming that the statements were misleading because they did not disclose the information regarding the product liability suits. Matrixx argued that to be material, information must consist of a statistically significant number of adverse events that require disclosure. Because Siracusano’s claim did not allege that Matrixx knew of a statistically significant number of adverse events, the company contended that the claim should be dismissed. What is the standard for materiality in this con-text? Should Siracusano’s claim be dismissed? Explain.
Relevant QuestionsDodona I, LLC, invested $ 4 million in two securities offerings from Goldman, Sachs & Co. The investments were in collat-eralized debt obligations ( CDOs). Their value depended on residential mortgage- backed securities ( ...Techplate Corporation learns that a federal administrative agency is considering a rule that will have a negative impact on the firm’s ability to do business. Does the firm have any opportunity to express its opinion ...McDonald’s Corp.’s Happy Meal® meal selection consists of an entrée, a small order of French fries, a small drink, and a toy. In the early 1990s, McDonald’s began to aim its Happy Meal marketing at children aged one ...1. Should the Court have applied the doctrine of stare decisis to hold that minimum resale price maintenance agreements are still subject to the per se rule? Why or why not?2. What factors might the courts consider in ...1. If the children had suffered no harm as a result of the attorney’s malpractice, would the outcome of this case have been different? Why or why not?2. Why did the court affirm the dismissal of Guido’s individual claim ...
Post your question