Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.
127 S. Ct. 2499 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), a securities fraud complaint will survive a motion to dismiss only if its factual allegations, taken collectively, give rise to a 'strong inference' of scienter, meaning the inference of fraudulent intent must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent.
Facts:
- Tellabs, Inc. manufactured equipment for fiber optic networks, and Richard Notebaert was its CEO.
- Between December 11, 2000, and June 19, 2001, Notebaert made a series of public statements assuring investors of strong demand for Tellabs' products and projecting record revenues.
- During this period, Shareholders allege Notebaert knew that demand for a key product was actually declining and that a new product was not ready for delivery.
- Shareholders also allege that Notebaert misrepresented financial results for the fourth quarter of 2000, partly through the practice of 'channel stuffing' (shipping unwanted products to customers to inflate sales).
- On June 19, 2001, Tellabs disclosed that demand for its key product had significantly dropped and drastically lowered its revenue projections.
- The following day, the price of Tellabs stock fell from a high of $67 to a low of $15.87, causing substantial losses for those who purchased stock during the relevant period.
Procedural Posture:
- Shareholders filed a class-action suit against Tellabs and Notebaert in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for securities fraud.
- The District Court granted Tellabs' motion to dismiss, finding the complaint failed to sufficiently plead scienter under the PSLRA, but gave Shareholders leave to amend.
- Shareholders filed an amended complaint, which the District Court again dismissed, this time with prejudice.
- Shareholders (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Tellabs as appellee.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the complaint survived if it alleged facts from which a reasonable person 'could infer' fraudulent intent, rejecting a standard that required weighing competing inferences.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts regarding the proper standard for pleading a 'strong inference' of scienter.
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 the 'strong inference' of scienter required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) mean that the inference of fraudulent intent must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
Yes, the 'strong inference' of scienter required by the PSLRA means the inference of fraudulent intent must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent. Congress enacted the PSLRA to raise the pleading standard for securities fraud and used the term 'strong' to require more than a merely plausible or reasonable inference. The strength of an inference is inherently comparative and cannot be assessed in a vacuum. Therefore, a court must weigh the plaintiff's inference of fraudulent intent against competing, plausible, non-culpable explanations for the defendant's conduct. A complaint survives only if a reasonable person would find the inference of scienter powerful, convincing, and at least as likely as any innocent explanation. This judicial gatekeeping function does not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, as Congress has the authority to set the pleading requirements for federal statutory claims.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No, a 'strong inference' requires more than being 'at least as compelling' as an opposing inference; it must be more plausible than the inference of innocence. The ordinary meaning of 'strong' does not accommodate a 50/50 possibility, which is what the majority's 'at least as compelling' standard allows. If two inferences are in equipoise, one cannot have a strong belief in either. Congress enacted the PSLRA to impose stringent pleading requirements, and in a close case, the tie should go to the defendant, not the plaintiff. The inference of scienter must be the most likely conclusion, not just a co-equal one.
Concurring - Justice Alito
No, a 'strong inference' means an inference that is more likely than not correct. This interpretation aligns the pleading test with the familiar standards used at the summary judgment and judgment-as-a-matter-of-law stages of litigation. The majority's 'at least as strong' test introduces a novel standard unknown in civil litigation, whereas it is more probable that Congress intended to adopt a known quantity. Furthermore, only facts alleged 'with particularity' should be considered in the analysis, as the statutory text requires.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No, the 'strong inference' standard should be interpreted as being equivalent to the familiar legal concept of 'probable cause,' which does not require a court to weigh competing inferences. The majority's comparative test is unnecessarily complex. If the factual allegations, taken as true, are sufficient to establish probable cause that the defendant acted with the required intent, the complaint should survive. It is unlikely Congress intended to make it more difficult to file a civil securities fraud case than for the government to initiate a criminal case. The complaint's detailed allegations from confidential informants clearly establish probable cause in this case.
Analysis:
This decision resolved a significant circuit split and established a uniform, heightened pleading standard for scienter in securities fraud cases. By mandating a comparative weighing of inferences at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court significantly strengthened the gatekeeping role of federal judges. The ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to proceed to discovery, thereby advancing the PSLRA's goal of filtering out frivolous or abusive litigation early. However, this stricter standard may also inadvertently screen out some meritorious claims where the evidence of fraudulent intent is not apparent without the benefit of discovery.
Unlock the full brief for Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.