close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Securities Litigation Alert: A Major Victory for Defendants in Securities Class Actions: Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.

On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that provides welcome news to any public company, officer or director facing the prospect of a securities class action lawsuit. In Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., the Court resolved a significant and long-standing split on how courts should interpret the "strong inference" of scienter pleading standard set forth in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("Reform Act") for securities fraud actions. After emphasizing that "securities fraud actions... if not adequately contained, can be employed abusively to impose substantial costs on companies and individuals whose conduct conforms to the law," the Court made clear that courts must be vigilant in scrutinizing – and filtering – such actions at the pleading stage. In particular, the Court held that a securities fraud complaint may survive dismissal only if the inference of scienter arising from the well-plead facts stated therein was "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged."

Background

The Reform Act sets forth a heightened pleading standard for securities fraud complaints. With respect to the scienter requirement of a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Reform Act requires that a complaint "state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind [i.e., the intent to deceive investors]." At issue in Tellabs was the extent to which a court must weigh competing factual inferences in determining whether a strong inference of scienter had been plead. Some circuits had ruled that, in effect, a court should consider only those inferences favorable to plaintiffs. Other courts, including the Ninth Circuit, held that the Reform Act instead requires courts to consider the factual allegations and weigh all competing inferences, including those unfavorable to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in Tellabs purported to represent a class of shareholders who purchased stock between December 11, 2000 and June 19, 2001. Their complaint was premised principally on allegedly false and misleading statements by the CEO concerning the company's financial health.

Tellabs moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to plead their claims with the factual particularity required by the Reform Act. The District Court agreed that plaintiffs failed to plead scienter on the part of the CEO, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in relevant part, holding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged facts sufficient to support an inference of scienter.

Supreme Court's Opinion

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, and rejected the appellate court's formulation of the term "strong inference" as only meaning "facts from which, if true, a reasonable person could infer that the defendant acted with the required intent." Rather, the Court made clear that the Congress intended to mandate a more stringent requirement: specifically, that all of the relevant factual allegations, considered in their entirety, must give rise to an inference of fraud that is not merely "plausible" or "reasonable," but is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent." (Emphasis added).

Thus, the court in a securities fraud case must assess the relevant facts at the pleading stage and engage in a comparative inquiry of factual inferences – i.e., it must consider plausible nonculpable explanations for the defendant's conduct, as well as inferences favoring the plaintiff, and measure their relative merits. Unless plaintiffs can show that the inferences weigh in their favor, or are at least equal to those favoring the defendants, the complaint should be dismissed.

The majority also rejected the argument that the Reform Act's heightened pleading standard violates the Seventh Amendment by demanding a higher showing at the pleading stage than at trial. The majority concluded that the "strong inference" standard does not demand that a plaintiff plead more than she would be required to prove at trial. To the contrary, the requirement that a pleading set forth facts showing that a plausible inference of fraud is at least as likely as any opposing inference is entirely consistent with plaintiff's ultimate burden at trial to prove her case by a "preponderance of the evidence."

Implications of the Ruling

By underscoring the potential abuses of securities fraud actions and the critical gatekeeping role that courts must play to curtail such harm, the Tellabs ruling is a major victory for defendants. There is no longer any doubt that a court must carefully examine all relevant facts at the pleading stage, evaluate the competing inferences to be drawn from those facts, and dismiss an action if the scale tips even slightly toward defendants. This standard is substantially higher than the lenient "notice pleading" required in most cases, and is even more stringent than the heightened requirements applicable to other types of fraud cases (as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has confirmed that, as the Ninth Circuit previously stated in Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F.3d 423, 437 (9th Cir. 2001), "[i]n few other areas are motions to dismiss.... so powerful."


Kevin P. Muck, Partner, Litigation Group
kmuck@fenwick.com, 415.875.2384

Felix S. Lee, Associate, Litigation Group
flee@fenwick.com, 650.335.7123

Gaurav Mathur, Associate, Litigation Group
gmathur@fenwick.com, 415.875.2438M

©2007 Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.

This update is intended by Fenwick & West LLP to summarize recent developments in the law. It is not intended, and should not be regarded, as legal advice. Readers who have particular questions about these issues should seek advice of counsel.