Denny v. Carey
72 F.R.D. 574 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), allegations of fraud must be stated with sufficient particularity to enable defendants to prepare an adequate answer, but this rule must be harmonized with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8's liberal notice pleading mandate, and does not require detailed evidentiary matter, especially when the facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendants.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, along with other purchasers of First Pennsylvania Corporation ("First Penn") securities, alleges violations of federal and state securities laws.
- From January 1, 1974, to January 28, 1976, First Penn, its officers (Gerard V. Carey, John A. Bunting, James F. Bodine), and its accounting firm (Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. - PMM) allegedly conspired to conceal First Penn’s true financial condition.
- This conspiracy involved issuing false and fraudulent statements that unreasonably avoided recognizing and accruing losses and inadequately provided for loan losses and total reserves, thereby inflating First Penn’s equity and net income.
- The alleged manipulation occurred across various investments, including real estate investment trusts, debts of or guaranteed by foreign governments or political subdivisions of the United States, and other speculative loans.
- Specific fraudulent acts included improperly including interest accruals from defaulted borrowers, engaging in "paper sales" of foreclosed properties to avoid showing substantial losses, failing to account for expected uncollectibles in real estate loans, and concealing loan defaults through extensions or modifications.
- PMM is accused of certifying First Penn's financial statements, knowing or having reason to know of material misstatements and omissions, fraudulently auditing records, knowingly failing to follow accepted accounting practices, and participating in the overstatement of earnings, net worth, assets, and surplus.
- First Penn belatedly recognized some losses in a statement published on January 27, 1976, disclosing a $12.9 million loss in the fourth quarter of 1974.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff initiated a proposed class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of federal and state securities laws.
- Defendants, including First Pennsylvania Corporation, its officers, and its accounting firm PMM, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff's allegations failed to state the circumstances constituting fraud with sufficient particularity as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b).
- Defendants also filed an alternative motion requesting that the plaintiff amend the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e), for failing to delineate claims in separate counts as mandated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint alleging securities fraud satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)'s particularity requirement when it identifies categories of fraudulent documents and generally avers scienter, especially where information is largely within the defendants' knowledge, and does it satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b)'s separate counts requirement if all claims arise from a single alleged conspiracy?
Opinions:
Majority - Joseph S. Lord, III, Chief Judge
Yes, the complaint satisfies both Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement and Rule 10(b)'s separate counts requirement. The court reasoned that Rule 9(b) must be harmonized with the liberal notice pleading standard of Rule 8, meaning it requires 'slightly more notice' than Rule 8 but not 'detailed evidentiary matter.' The standard is met if there is 'sufficient identification of the circumstances constituting fraud so that the defendant can prepare an adequate answer to the allegations.' The court rejected the defendants' argument for a 'rigorous' burden, stating that an undue focus on harm to reputation or the possibility of nuisance suits could lead to 'substantial unfairness' to fraud victims, especially when 'many of the matters are peculiarly within the knowledge of defendants.' The complaint adequately identified categories of fraudulent documents and the nature of the misstatements, and the general averment of scienter ('knew or should have known') is expressly permitted under Rule 9(b). Furthermore, the charges against PMM were sufficiently particular, alleging active fraudulent participation rather than mere passive 'aiding and abetting' without scienter. Regarding Rule 10(b), the court found no necessity to set forth charges in separate counts because the various claims and transactions were all part of one cause of action, an alleged conspiracy, and the complaint provided sufficient notice for each defendant to frame a responsive pleading.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the balance between requiring specificity in fraud pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) and maintaining the liberal pleading standards of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. It established that Rule 9(b) is not an impenetrable barrier to complex fraud cases, particularly class actions involving securities where much of the relevant information is within the exclusive control of the defendants. The ruling permits plaintiffs to proceed to discovery after providing a reasonable, non-conclusory outline of the alleged fraud, preventing defendants from using Rule 9(b) as an overly stringent shield against legitimate claims and promoting access to justice for victims of financial misconduct.
