Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs Inc.
2008 WL 151180, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 975, 513 F.3d 702 (2008)
Rule of Law:
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) requires a securities fraud complaint to plead facts giving rise to a “strong inference” of scienter, meaning that the inference of the defendant's intent to deceive or severe recklessness must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of non-scienter, even when relying on sufficiently detailed and corroborated information from confidential sources.
Facts:
- Tellabs, Inc. manufactured equipment for fiber optic cable networks, with its principal product being the TITAN 5500 switching system, which accounted for over half its sales.
- In December 2000, Tellabs announced that its successor product, TITAN 6500, was "available now" and that Sprint had signed a multiyear, $100 million contract for it, though no actual sales pursuant to the contract closed during the complaint period.
- Between December 2000 and April 2001, Tellabs and CEO Richard Notebaert made numerous public statements indicating strong and growing demand for both the 5500 and 6500 systems, describing growth as "robust" and customers "embracing" the new product.
- From the outset of this period, Tellabs was flooding its customers with tens of millions of dollars worth of 5500s that the customers had not requested, creating an illusion of demand, a practice known as "channel stuffing."
- In January and February 2001, Tellabs had to lease extra storage space to accommodate the large number of returns for the 5500 systems.
- The market for the 5500 was evaporating by December 2000; in January 2001, Tellabs’s largest customer, Verizon, reduced its orders for the 5500 by 50 percent, having already reduced them by 25 percent the previous June.
- Not a single 6500 system was shipped during the complaint period, despite public statements claiming strong demand and impending full manufacturing capacity.
- In June 2001, Tellabs announced a major drop in revenues, and its share price plummeted from a peak of $67 to just under $16.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. and other investors) filed a securities fraud lawsuit against Tellabs, Inc. and its CEO, Richard Notebaert, in a federal district court.
- The district court dismissed the suit on the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, finding that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded both materially false statements and the required scienter (437 F.3d 588).
- Defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision regarding the interpretation of the "strong inference" of scienter requirement under the PSLRA (127 S.Ct. 2499) and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit to reconsider the scienter pleading standard.
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 against Tellabs, Inc. and its CEO, Richard Notebaert, plead facts that create a "strong inference" of scienter, as defined by the Supreme Court, sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
Yes, the complaint alleging securities fraud against Tellabs, Inc. and its CEO, Richard Notebaert, pleads facts that create a "strong inference" of scienter sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The court, on remand from the Supreme Court, applied the standard that the inference of scienter must be "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged." The court found a strong inference of corporate scienter, deeming it "exceedingly unlikely" that no member of senior management involved in public statements about the demand for the company's most important products (the 5500 and 6500) knew those statements were false. The alternative hypotheses, such as a cascade of innocent mistakes or acts by subordinate employees not imputable to the company's fraud, were considered far less likely. The widespread, high-level nature of the misrepresentations, coupled with evidence of deliberate deceptive practices like "channel stuffing" and massive product returns, supported the inference of scienter. Similarly, a strong inference of scienter was found for CEO Richard Notebaert, as almost all the false statements emanated directly from him concerning the company’s key products, making it "exceedingly unlikely" he was unaware of the severe problems. The court rejected the argument that a lack of financial motive or subsequent disclosure negated scienter, noting that concealing bad news in the hope of future improvement could constitute a reckless gamble. Finally, the court held that allegations based on numerous confidential sources, who were described as having first-hand knowledge of the facts and provided information in convincing detail, were sufficient to draw a strong inference of scienter, distinguishing the case from others where anonymous source information was deemed too flimsy. The court's previous ruling that the statements were adequately pleaded as materially false remained the law of the case.
Analysis:
This decision is a critical application of the Supreme Court's heightened pleading standard for scienter under the PSLRA, clarifying how lower courts should perform the comparative analysis of competing inferences. It demonstrates that specific, detailed allegations of widespread misstatements about core company products, especially when coupled with evidence of deceptive sales practices like 'channel stuffing,' can establish a 'strong inference' of corporate and individual scienter. The ruling also provides important guidance on the evidentiary weight of allegations derived from confidential sources, emphasizing that detailed, first-hand accounts can be sufficiently credible even without named informants. This case sets a benchmark for plaintiffs seeking to overcome a motion to dismiss in securities fraud litigation by illustrating the depth of factual particularity required to demonstrate knowing or reckless deception.
