Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantplea
pleamotionclass actioncivil procedurerespondentmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Mourad v. Automobile Club Ins. Ass’n, 186 Mich.App. 715, 465 N.W.2d 395, 59 USLW 2495, 121 Lab.Cas. P 56,861, 6 IER Cases 193
View Case »
Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42
View Case »
In re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325, 398 P.2d 420, 42 Cal.Rptr. 228
View Case »
Heavener v. Meyers, 158 F.Supp.2d 1278
View Case »
Legal Aid Soc. of Hawaii v. Legal Services Corp., 980 F.Supp. 1142 (Mem)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179, 75 USLW 4462, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,335, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7139, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9258, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 374

Facts

Tellabs, Inc. manufactures equipment for fiber optic networks. Shareholders purchased Tellabs stock between December 11, 2000, and June 19, 2001, and alleged that Tellabs and CEO Richard Notebaert engaged in securities fraud by making misleading statements about the company's performance. After the District Court dismissed their initial complaint for lack of particularity under the PSLRA, the Shareholders amended their complaint, but the court dismissed it again, this time with prejudice, stating that while the statements were misleading, the Shareholders did not sufficiently allege that Notebaert acted with scienter. The Seventh Circuit reversed this decision, concluding that the Shareholders had adequately alleged Notebaert's state of mind.

Petitioner Tellabs, Inc., manufactures specialized equipment for fiber optic networks. Respondents (Shareholders) purchased Tellabs stock between December 11, 2000, and June 19, 2001. They filed a class action, alleging that Tellabs and petitioner Notebaert, then Tellabs' chief executive officer and president, had engaged in securities fraud in violation of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b–5, and that Notebaert was a “controlling person” under the 1934 Act, and therefore derivatively liable for the company's fraudulent acts.

Issue

Did the Shareholders adequately plead facts that give rise to a strong inference that Notebaert acted with scienter under the PSLRA?

Did the Shareholders adequately plead facts that give rise to a strong inference that Notebaert acted with scienter under the PSLRA?

Rule

To establish a strong inference of scienter under the PSLRA, a plaintiff must plead facts that render the inference of scienter at least as likely as any plausible opposing inference, and courts must consider all allegations collectively rather than in isolation.

To qualify as “strong” within the intendment of § 21D(b)(2), an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable—it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the PSLRA's heightened pleading requirements and determined that an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible; it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference. The Court emphasized that courts should evaluate the entirety of the complaint and consider plausible nonculpable explanations for the defendant's conduct alongside inferences favoring the plaintiff. The Court found that the Seventh Circuit's approach, which did not consider competing inferences, was insufficient under the PSLRA's standards.

The Court establishes the following prescriptions: First, faced with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a § 10(b) action, courts must, as with any motion to dismiss for failure to plead a claim on which relief can be granted, accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true. Second, courts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. The inquiry is whether all of the facts alleged, taken collectively, give rise to a strong inference of scienter, not whether any individual allegation, scrutinized in isolation, meets that standard.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation of the PSLRA's pleading requirements.

Vacated and remanded.

Who won?

The prevailing party is the Shareholders, as the Supreme Court's ruling allows their case to proceed based on the clarified standard for pleading scienter.

The prevailing party is the Shareholders, as the Supreme Court's ruling allows their case to proceed based on the clarified standard for pleading scienter.

You must be