Knowledge (XXG)

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act

Source 📝

411:
Commission of such notification by auditors within one day. If the auditing accountant does not receive a copy of the SEC notification within one day, the auditor must withdraw from the engagement and notify the SEC directly of the report made to the Board. That provision constitutes an important affirmative requirement of auditors to breach confidentiality. Although PSLRA reduced the public protections from fraudulent operations within a public company that issue from fraudster's aversion to civil liability, the burden of decreasing fraud risk is shifted by PSLRA to auditors of public firms, which presumably have deeper access to critical financial operations and details.
247:. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially an argument by the defendant that even if all of the facts alleged in the complaint were assumed to be true, they would not be sufficient to give rise to liability under Rule 10b-5. If the court determines that the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to state a Rule 10b-5 claim, the plaintiff then becomes entitled to obtain "discovery" from the defendant, which typically means the right to demand documentary evidence in the defendant's possession concerning the facts at issue, and the right to require the defendant (and other witnesses) to sit for depositions. 346:
both of scienter and of an innocent mental state, using the innocent inferences to test whether the culpable interest is strong, but do not directly weigh one against the other. The Second and Third circuits divide the factual allegations bearing on a defendant's mental state into categories, "motive and opportunity" and "strong circumstantial evidence" of knowing or reckless conduct, either of which may independently satisfy the strong inference requirement. And, the Seventh Circuit... did not consider competing inferences, but concluded that if an inference of culpability exists, the pleading is sufficient.
239:. Other actions alleging substantially similar claims may also be filed. The PSLRA mandates the consolidation of those actions into one lawsuit followed by the appointment of a plaintiff or group of plaintiffs to serve as the lead plaintiff. More than one plaintiff typically seeks to serve as the lead plaintiff. The court overseeing the lawsuit typically appoints the plaintiff with the "largest financial interest" in the action, or greatest sustained loss, to serve as the plead plaintiff. The defendant will then file a 311:
alleging scienter under the PSLRA, the plaintiff must, "with respect to each act or omission alleged to violate this chapter, state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind." 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2). The requirement allows defendants to obtain dismissal of cases of the plaintiff merely pointing to a false statement and declares that the defendant "must have known" that the statement was false, based upon the position within the company.
298:
all facts on which that belief is formed." 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1). If a plaintiff's complaint does not specifically identify the allegedly fraudulent statements and explain why they were misleading, the complaint is dismissed. By requiring plaintiffs to set forth their theory regarding why a particular statement was misleading, the PSLRA enables defendants to put forth arguments as to why the challenged statement was not in fact misleading. Rule 9(b) of the
378:
suffers no economic loss at the time of purchase. The loss occurs only when the truth is disclosed and the stock price falls as a result. Thus, a plaintiff who sells his shares "before the relevant truth begins to leak out" does not suffer any economic damage. The plaintiff in Dura failed to allege that the "share price fell significantly after the truth became known" and so the complaint had not alleged loss causation.
268:
case, the attorneys for plaintiffs and defendants argue fiercely over the rules that govern such motion to dismiss. Plaintiff lawyers advocate less demanding standards, as such standards would result in a larger number of cases to proceed to discovery and higher amounts of settlements. Defense lawyers and the corporations that they represent, on the other hand, advocate more demanding standards, for opposite reasons.
54:. Prior to the PSLRA, plaintiffs could proceed with minimal evidence of fraud, and then use pretrial discovery to seek further proof. That set a very low barrier to initiate litigation, which encouraged the filing of weak or entirely-frivolous suits. Defending against the suits could prove extremely costly, even when the charges were unfounded, and so defendants often found it cheaper to settle than to fight and win. 386:, such cases are often dismissed because, in most instances, the analyst's dishonesty never comes to light until after the price of the stock in question has declined substantially. By then, the "bad facts" about the company have already been absorbed by the market and so plaintiffs cannot show that the disclosure of the analyst's dishonesty caused any further decline in the stock price. 175: 96:(commonly known as the "Exchange Act" or the "1934 Act") gives shareholders the right to bring a private action in federal court to recover damages the shareholder sustained as a result of securities fraud. The majority of securities fraud claims are brought pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (codified at 377:
decision held that a plaintiff in a Rule 10b-5 case had not adequately pleaded loss causation by merely alleging that he "paid artificially inflated prices for Dura securities" at the time of purchase. The Supreme Court observed that an investor who purchases a stock at an artificially-inflated price
345:
Four circuits, the First, Fourth, Sixth and Ninth, require a direct comparison of the plausibility of competing inferences. Unless the culpable inference is the "most plausible," it is not "strong" and the complaint should be dismissed. Two circuits, the Eighth and the Tenth, consider all inferences,
297:
The PSLRA requires a plaintiff to identify in his complaint "each statement alleged to have been misleading, the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and if an allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on information and belief, the complaint shall state with particularity
288:
To reduce the number of purportedly-frivolous Rule 10b-5 lawsuits that survive motions to dismiss, the PSLRA raised the pleading standards for the specificity and the strength of the factual allegations that must be alleged in the plaintiff's complaint in three specific ways. Those changes are among
271:
Both sides in the debate use rhetoric that claims the mantle of "justice." The defense bar generally contends that lower pleading standards allow more frivolous lawsuits and extorted settlements that primarily benefit plaintiff lawyers, not shareholders. On the other hand, the plaintiffs' bar claims
57:
Under the PSLRA, however, plaintiffs must meet a heightened pleading standard before they can initiate a suit. In other words, PSLRA was specifically intended to make it more difficult to initiate securities litigation (frivolous or otherwise) because plaintiffs would supposedly be forced to present
267:
Thus, the outcome of a motion to dismiss in a Rule 10b-5 case essentially determines whether the case gets dismissed, or it proceeds to discovery and very often results in class certification and a very large settlement. Because the motion to dismiss is a pivotal stage in the course of a Rule 10b-5
254:
If the plaintiff's complaint survives the defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the next step is usually for the plaintiff to seek class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If the court grants the plaintiff's motion for class certification, the case becomes a
250:
In a modern litigation context, the discovery process is protracted and very expensive and often involves production of millions of pages of documents and depositions of dozens of witnesses and costs the defendant as much as millions of dollars in legal fees. Thus, it is extremely important to the
310:
The PSLRA also requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted with the required state of mind and knew the challenged statement was false at the time it was made or was reckless in not recognizing that the statement was false (the legal term of art for that state of mind is scienter). In
258:
For example, if the plaintiff class is composed of 50,000 shareholders, each shareholder owns an average of 1,000 shares, and each shareholder claims to have sustained losses of $ 10 per share, the potential compensatory damages are $ 500 million. Therefore, as a practical matter, if a Rule 10b-5
355:
Finally, the PSLRA also makes clear that a plaintiff in a Rule 10b-5 case "shall have the burden of proving that the act or omission of the defendant... caused the loss for which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages" (15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(4)). At one time, there was a question over whether the
284:
The legislative history reveals that Congress passed the PSLRA to curb the "abusive practices committed in private securities litigation" including "the routine filing of lawsuits against issuers of securities and others whenever there is a significant change in an issuer's stock price, without
410:
Section 301 adds additional duties to a firm's auditor, including a requirement to report evidence of illegal activity to the firm's Board of Directors, or the Board of Directors' Audit Committee. The Board of Directors or subunit is consequently obligated to notify the Securities and Exchange
381:
How a court defines the "relevant truth" that the defendant fraudulently withheld often determines the outcome of a 10b-5 case. The stock analyst cases provide a good example of the importance of how the "relevant truth" is defined. The claim in most stock analyst cases is that the analyst
275:
The importance of the ratification of the PSLRA in 1995 can be fully appreciated only when by noting such long-running debate between the plaintiff bar and the defense bar over the applicable standards governing Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss in Rule 10b-5 claims.
394:
To prevent discovery until a court has deemed a securities fraud complaint sufficient, the PSLRA also imposes a stay of all discovery "during the pendency of any motion to dismiss." The stay operates against all parties, including both plaintiffs and defendants.
332:
and issued June 21, 2007, interpreted the standard. The Court ruled that for plaintiffs to allege a "strong inference" of intentional fraud, the inference must be "cogent" and "at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent." The
356:
requirement actually applied at the motion to dismiss stage. The statute says that the plaintiff must "prove" loss causation, but it does not say the plaintiff must "allege" loss causation. However, after the Supreme Court's decision in
136:, the law typically presumes that shareholders rely on the integrity of the market and therefore that the price of the stock reflected material misrepresentation and that shareholders relied upon the integrity of the market); 104:, which the SEC promulgated under the authority granted to it by Congress under the Exchange Act. Federal securities fraud actions will be referred to as "Rule 10b-5 actions" or "Rule 10b-5 cases" as convenient shorthand. 122:", a "wrongful state of mind" (typically understood to mean that the defendant intended to make the material misrepresentation or omission or acted with recklessness in making the misrepresentation or omission); 263:
of going to trial will put the defendant under pressure to settle. That is, the cost of high-enough-damages, even when it is multiplied by the small chance of losing a jury verdict, may still be very high.
36:, 109 Stat. 737 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 U.S.C.) ("PSLRA") implemented several substantive changes in the United States that have affected certain cases brought under the 259:
case is not dismissed on a motion to dismiss and is certified as a class action, the defendant faces a lot of pressure to settle the case. Even if the plaintiff has a relatively weak case, the
161:
Each of the elements has been heavily litigated in thousands of cases over the past 70 years, and the courts have applied the six elements in a multitude of different factual situations.
763: 147: 143: 128:
the plaintiff who was allegedly victimized by the fraud relied upon the material misrepresentation or omission (if the security is traded on a public stock exchange, such as the
574: 758: 255:
securities fraud class action, and the defendant then usually faces enormous liability if the case goes to trial, and the jury renders a verdict against the defendant.
142:
the plaintiff can allege and prove "loss causation," which means that the allegedly-fraudulent misrepresentation or omission caused the plaintiff's economic loss. See
316: 285:
regard to any underlying culpability of the issuer, and with only faint hope that the discovery process might lead eventually to some plausible cause of action."
498:
voted against it. There was one other time during Bill Clinton's presidency that Congress successfully overrode one of his 37 vetoes to enact a bill into law.
399: 65:." Congress specifically pointed to the reluctance of judges to impose Section 11 sanctions as an additional reason for the passage of the legislation. 442:
approved it, 68–30. Every Republican in the House voted in favor of the legislation, and only four Republicans in the Senate voted against it:
435: 357: 272:
that higher pleading standards enable corporate executives to loot their companies and to defraud innocent shareholders with impunity.
251:
litigants if a motion to dismiss is granted, as the costs of litigation increase substantially when the motion to dismiss is denied.
584: 218: 185: 609: 299: 107:
The Supreme Court has held that there are six elements that a plaintiff must allege and prove to prevail in a Rule 10b-5 action:
334: 93: 76:
with large dollar amounts at stake. It mandates full disclosure to investors of proposed settlements, including the amount of
428: 402:
has amended that provision to allow a federal court to impose the discovery stay on related securities suits in state court.
420: 744:
Text of Title 15 U.S. Code § 78u–4 - Private securities litigation, one of the many sections added or amended by the Act
236: 37: 325: 200: 21: 196: 538: 495: 129: 125:
the material misrepresentation or omission was made "in connection with the purchase or sale of a security";
553: 549: 73: 62: 33: 510: 506: 151: 81: 738: 382:
dishonestly touted a particular stock as a good investment despite the analyst's genuine belief. Under
439: 684:
See Bertrand S. Sellier and John H. Snyder, "The Fight Over The Loss Causation Burden Isn't Over",
471: 329: 48: 30: 474:
voted in favor of the legislation, but many conservative-to-moderate Democrats such as Senators
77: 112: 72:
lawsuits. It allows judges to decide the most adequate plaintiff in class actions by favoring
605: 518: 232: 41: 671:
Gold, Sarah, Spinogatti, Richard, "Pleading 'Strong Inference' of Scienter Under PSLRA",
579: 483: 467: 451: 260: 240: 154: 80:. It bars bonus payments to favored plaintiffs and permits judges to scrutinize lawyer 752: 662:
H.R. Rep. No. 104-369, at 41 (1995) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 730.
526: 502: 455: 443: 88:
Background: Overview of securities fraud actions under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
743: 639: 431: 69: 97: 514: 491: 479: 475: 463: 447: 362:, it is now clear that a plaintiff must allege loss causation in its complaint. 302:
had already required for allegations of fraud to be pleaded with particularity.
739:
Text of Public Law 104-67, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
522: 459: 101: 139:
the plaintiff suffered an economic loss as a result of the alleged fraud; and
575:"Madoff Victims Face Grim Prospects in Court: Jane Bryant Quinn - Bloomberg" 231:
In a typical Rule 10b-5 claim, the plaintiff starts the action by filing a
244: 487: 338: 119: 51: 543: 133: 203:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. 337:
had adopted substantially-disparate tests for determining whether
306:
Requirement that pleading create a "strong inference" of scienter
293:
Requirement that false statements be pleaded "with particularity"
58:
evidence of fraud before any pretrial discovery has taken place.
44:, liability, class representation, and awards fees and expenses. 424: 165:
In context: Procedural course of modern securities fraud actions
168: 458:. Prominent liberals in the Democratic Party like Senators 509:. Its principal authors in the House were Representatives 545:
In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation
713:, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49162 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2006). 192: 640:"15 U.S. Code § 78u–4 - Private securities litigation" 610:"Reforming Pensions While Retaining Shareholder Voice" 68:The PSLRA does impose some new rules on securities 22: 351:Requirement for plaintiff to prove loss causation 438:approved the bill by a 319–100 margin, and the 501:The PSLRA was originally developed as part of 8: 764:United States federal securities legislation 400:Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act 289:the most significant aspects of the PSLRA. 61:Also, PSLRA was enacted to "give teeth to 47:The PSLRA was designed to limit frivolous 529:sponsored the legislation in the Senate. 219:Learn how and when to remove this message 40:, including changes related to pleading, 759:Acts of the 104th United States Congress 18:Private Securities Litigation Reform Act 711:In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Sec. Litig. 566: 419:The PSLRA was enacted into law by the 406:Enhanced audit duties and obligations 7: 320:(06/21/2007) interprets the standard 144:Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo 328:, in an opinion written by Justice 548:, regarding alleged violations of 27:Tooltip Public Law (United States) 14: 644:LII / Legal Information Institute 300:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 280:Heightened pleading requirements 245:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 173: 115:misrepresentation or omission"; 94:Securities Exchange Act of 1934 359:Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo 100:), as well as pursuant to SEC 1: 436:U.S. House of Representatives 614:Boston University Law Review 583:. 2012-10-24. Archived from 490:and Representatives such as 725:15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(D). 697:15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(B). 369:decision and loss causation 335:US Circuit Courts of Appeal 326:United States Supreme Court 243:under Rule 12(b)(6) of the 199:the claims made and adding 780: 118:the defendant acted with " 539:Forward-looking statement 341:is sufficiently pleaded: 130:New York Stock Exchange 74:institutional investors 38:federal securities laws 554:Securities Act of 1933 348: 111:The defendant made a " 507:Contract With America 343: 82:conflicts of interest 686:National Law Journal 675:, February 14, 2007. 673:New York Law Journal 472:Carol Moseley Braun 415:Legislative history 330:Ruth Bader Ginsburg 184:possibly contains 688:, April 16, 2007. 390:Stay of discovery 241:motion to dismiss 229: 228: 221: 186:original research 771: 726: 720: 714: 704: 698: 695: 689: 682: 676: 669: 663: 660: 654: 653: 651: 650: 636: 630: 629: 627: 625: 606:Webber, David H. 602: 596: 595: 593: 592: 571: 317:Tellabs v. Makor 224: 217: 213: 210: 204: 201:inline citations 177: 176: 169: 28: 24: 779: 778: 774: 773: 772: 770: 769: 768: 749: 748: 735: 730: 729: 721: 717: 705: 701: 696: 692: 683: 679: 670: 666: 661: 657: 648: 646: 638: 637: 633: 623: 621: 604: 603: 599: 590: 588: 573: 572: 568: 563: 535: 519:Christopher Cox 417: 408: 392: 371: 353: 322: 308: 295: 282: 225: 214: 208: 205: 190: 178: 174: 167: 98:15 U.S.C. § 78j 90: 78:attorneys' fees 26: 12: 11: 5: 777: 775: 767: 766: 761: 751: 750: 747: 746: 741: 734: 733:External links 731: 728: 727: 715: 699: 690: 677: 664: 655: 631: 597: 580:Bloomberg News 565: 564: 562: 559: 558: 557: 541: 534: 531: 484:Fritz Hollings 468:Claiborne Pell 452:Richard Shelby 416: 413: 407: 404: 391: 388: 370: 364: 352: 349: 321: 313: 307: 304: 294: 291: 281: 278: 261:expected value 227: 226: 181: 179: 172: 166: 163: 159: 158: 140: 137: 126: 123: 116: 89: 86: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 776: 765: 762: 760: 757: 756: 754: 745: 742: 740: 737: 736: 732: 724: 719: 716: 712: 708: 703: 700: 694: 691: 687: 681: 678: 674: 668: 665: 659: 656: 645: 641: 635: 632: 619: 615: 611: 607: 601: 598: 587:on 2012-10-24 586: 582: 581: 576: 570: 567: 560: 555: 551: 547: 546: 542: 540: 537: 536: 532: 530: 528: 527:Pete Domenici 524: 520: 516: 512: 511:Thomas Bliley 508: 504: 503:Newt Gingrich 499: 497: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 456:Arlen Specter 453: 449: 445: 444:William Cohen 441: 437: 433: 430: 426: 422: 421:U.S. Congress 414: 412: 405: 403: 401: 396: 389: 387: 385: 379: 376: 368: 365: 363: 361: 360: 350: 347: 342: 340: 336: 331: 327: 319: 318: 314: 312: 305: 303: 301: 292: 290: 286: 279: 277: 273: 269: 265: 262: 256: 252: 248: 246: 242: 238: 237:federal court 234: 223: 220: 212: 209:February 2011 202: 198: 194: 188: 187: 182:This section 180: 171: 170: 164: 162: 156: 153: 149: 145: 141: 138: 135: 131: 127: 124: 121: 117: 114: 110: 109: 108: 105: 103: 99: 95: 87: 85: 83: 79: 75: 71: 66: 64: 59: 55: 53: 50: 45: 43: 39: 35: 32: 31:104–67 (text) 25: 19: 722: 718: 710: 706: 702: 693: 685: 680: 672: 667: 658: 647:. Retrieved 643: 634: 622:. Retrieved 617: 613: 600: 589:. Retrieved 585:the original 578: 569: 544: 500: 432:Bill Clinton 418: 409: 397: 393: 383: 380: 374: 372: 366: 358: 354: 344: 323: 315: 309: 296: 287: 283: 274: 270: 266: 257: 253: 249: 230: 215: 206: 183: 160: 157: (2005). 106: 91: 70:class action 67: 60: 56: 46: 17: 15: 624:18 November 521:. Senators 515:Jack Fields 496:Gene Taylor 492:John Murtha 480:Robert Byrd 476:John Breaux 464:Ted Kennedy 448:John McCain 440:U.S. Senate 753:Categories 649:2022-02-05 591:2023-05-26 561:References 550:Section 11 523:Chris Dodd 460:Tom Harkin 193:improve it 102:Rule 10b-5 63:Section 11 49:securities 707:See, e.g. 429:President 233:complaint 197:verifying 42:discovery 20:of 1995, 608:(2019). 533:See also 488:Sam Nunn 339:scienter 120:scienter 113:material 52:lawsuits 552:of the 423:over a 191:Please 23:Pub. L. 620:: 1012 486:, and 470:, and 454:, and 434:. The 134:NASDAQ 29:  150: 34:(PDF) 16:The 626:2019 525:and 517:and 494:and 425:veto 398:The 384:Dura 375:Dura 373:The 367:Dura 324:The 152:U.S. 92:The 723:See 505:'s 427:by 235:in 195:by 155:336 148:544 132:or 755:: 709:, 642:. 618:99 616:. 612:. 577:. 513:, 482:, 478:, 466:, 462:, 450:, 446:, 146:, 84:. 652:. 628:. 594:. 556:. 222:) 216:( 211:) 207:( 189:.

Index

Pub. L.
104–67 (text)
(PDF)
federal securities laws
discovery
securities
lawsuits
Section 11
class action
institutional investors
attorneys' fees
conflicts of interest
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
15 U.S.C. § 78j
Rule 10b-5
material
scienter
New York Stock Exchange
NASDAQ
Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo
544
U.S.
336
original research
improve it
verifying
inline citations
Learn how and when to remove this message
complaint
federal court

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.