CoboCards App FAQ & Wishes Feedback
Language: English Language
Sign up for free  Login

This flashcard is just one of a free flashcard set. See all flashcards!

All main topics / Law / Civil Law / Civil Procedure 1L
Tellabs v. Makor
Investors brought a securities fraud class action against a corp. and its CEO, who published info that their flagship product was still selling strong when not, did channel stuffing, other bad acts.  Ct dismissed - failed to establish CEO's scienter (had to say w/particularity some facts that give rise to a strong inference of scienter.)  Shareholders amended to add 27 statements of others to CEO's state of mind, ct dismissed again.  Appeal granted, reasonable person standard.  Certiorari granted.

H - Ginsburg: reasonable person not appropriate, b/c fails to take into account competing inferences.  Must plead facts to show scienter is at least as likely as not.
Scalia's concurrence is that inference of scienter should be more plausible than the inference of innocence.
Stevens's dissent says we don't need to look at competing inference, just is this probable?


In alleging fraud or mistake, must be specific about circumstances constituting fraud or mistake, but can infer scienter.  Must be a "strong inference."  This is to prevent allegations of fraud by hindsight - i.e., every time your stock drops.

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 to put a higher standard on the specificity required in the pleadings under the SEC Act, to protect companies from the costs of discovery etc, when they are Ds.

Tags: Pleading, Specificity
New comment
Flashcard info:
Author: stgillian
Main topic: Law
Topic: Civil Law
School / Univ.: Tulane
City: New Orleans, LA
Published: 02.03.2010




Forgot password?
Deutsch  English