Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.

Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights

Argued March 28, 2007
Decided June 21, 2007
Full case name Tellabs Incorporated v. Makor Issues & Rights
Docket nos. 06-484
Citations

551 U.S. 308 (more)

127 S. Ct. 2499; 168 L. Ed. 2d 179; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 8270; 75 U.S.L.W. 4462; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P94,335; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 374
Holding
"To qualify as “strong” within the intendment of § 21D(b)(2), we hold, 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."
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Majority Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Concurrence Scalia
Concurrence Alito
Dissent Stevens

Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, 551 U.S. 308 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled on the interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995's requirement of scienter in a civil action in apply to Tellabs and Makor Issues & Rights.[1] The various federal circuits have taken different approaches to defining what it means, under the PSLRA, for a plaintiff to sufficiently plead a "strong inference" of scienter (a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud).

The Court ruled a reasonable inference of scienter from assumed-true facts was insufficient and inconsistent with Congressional intent. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg wrote that "to qualify as “strong” within the intendment of § 21D(b)(2), we hold, 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...the inference of scienter must be more than merely “reasonable” or “permissible”-it must be cogent and compelling, thus strong in light of other explanations. A complaint will survive, we hold, only if a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged."[2]

Tellabs increased the hurdle civil litigants must traverse in order to recover damages for securities fraud because it made it more difficult to demonstrate scienter (a necessary element of the claim). Instead of being able to reasonably deduce scienter from the alleged facts of the case, a claimant must also demonstrate that fraud is at least as likely as other, more-innocent explanations.

See also

References

  1. ↑ OYEZ article
  2. ↑ Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2504-05 (2007).


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 6/6/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.