Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Pleading Standard for Securities Fraud Complaints
In Tellabs v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd. (June 21, 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court offered clarity on the requirement in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the 'PSLRA') that plaintiffs in securities fraud actions plead with particularity facts giving rise to a 'strong inference' of scienter. Basically, the Court was asked to decide how to address pleadings when there are contrasting inferences with respect to scienter. On this point, the Court held by an 8-1 vote that to qualify as 'strong' within the meaning of ' 21D(b)(2) of the PSLRA, an inference of scienter must be more than 'merely plausible or reasonable.' The Court ruled that the trial court must balance competing inferences raised by the parties' pleadings and before the trial court and that '[a] complaint will survive only if a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any plausible opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.'
There has been some disagreement on the impact of the ruling. Some commentators and most media suggest that the Tellabs decision is a positive ruling for companies and executives, making it more difficult for shareholder-plaintiffs to sue companies and executives or win substantial damages. In contrast, recognizing that the Court is seemingly pro-business, some commentators consider it a minor victory for shareholders that the Court did not adopt Justice Scalia's view (expressed in his concurring opinion) that equally competing inferences cannot establish scienter, the willful intent to commit fraud. In fact, some commentators have gone so far as to suggest that the majority's 'prescriptions' actually do not differ from what courts already follow and that the Court whiffled on a golden opportunity to drastically limit class actions.
Background
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?