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: Tellabs, Inc. et al. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., et al.

On March 28, 2007, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Tellabs, Inc., et al. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., et al., a case that promises to resolve a significant and long-standing disagreement among courts on interpretation of the requirement that plaintiffs in securities fraud actions plead a "strong inference" of scienter.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") requires that a complaint "state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind." At issue in Tellabs was the extent to which a court must weigh competing factual inferences in determining whether a strong inference of scienter has been alleged. The Seventh Circuit ruled that irrespective of whether there were other plausible competing inferences weighing against a finding of scienter, a court should "allow a complaint to survive if it alleges facts from which, if true, a reasonable person could infer that the defendant acted with the required intent." Other circuits, including the Ninth, have ruled that instead of interpreting all facts alleged in a complaint in favor of the plaintiff, as courts traditionally do, the PSLRA requires the court to weigh all competing inferences, including those unfavorable to the plaintiff.

Surprisingly, the justices spent a significant portion of the argument discussing whether a heightened pleading standard would violate the Seventh Amendment by demanding a higher showing at the pleading stage than at trial, where only a preponderance of the evidence would be required. Justices Scalia and Breyer seemed to suggest that such a heightened standard could pass constitutional muster given that other barriers to entry into federal courts created by Congress are deemed permissible.

Other justices, however, expressed concern about a pleading standard that might be higher than the ultimate standard of proof for a jury. In response, counsel for both Tellabs and the Solicitor General–who were advocating the heightened pleading standard that takes all reasonable inferences into consideration–argued that those concerns could be properly addressed by raising the ultimate standard of proof at trial, rather than watering down the "strong inference" pleading standard mandated by Congress.

Also of note was a discussion of whether a court could infer from a CEO's position alone that he must have had knowledge about alleged financial misconduct. Shareholders' counsel argued that it was unlikely that a CEO would not have knowledge of important financial issues, while Tellabs' counsel argued that the plaintiff must plead particularized facts regarding the CEO's scienter.

The Supreme Court may also address in its opinion several other important issues in its opinion that were not substantively discussed in the oral arguments. These include: whether plaintiffs who purport to rely upon "confidential sources" to bolster their allegations must identify those sources; whether the PSLRA raised the substantive scienter standard for securities fraud cases, as opposed to merely the requirements for pleading that element; and whether the PSLRA requires a strong inference of scienter to be alleged separately for each person named as a defendant (rather than permitting the plaintiffs to resort to so-called "group pleading"). A decision is expected by the end of June.


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, 415.875.2438

©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.