U.S. top court rules for Tellabs on fraud suit

Lawyer Blogs

[##_1L|1001916482.jpg|width="130" height="98" alt=""|_##]The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for investors to pursue securities fraud lawsuits, in a big victory for network equipment maker Tellabs Inc. At issue in the ruling is a class action lawsuit filed by Tellabs investors charging that the company and former Chief Executive Richard Notebaert misled investors in 2000 and 2001 in order to keep the company's stock inflated at a time when business was flagging.

A federal court in Illinois had dismissed the lawsuit, concluding the allegations were too vague and did not raise a "strong inference" that the company intended to deceive shareholders.

The "strong inference" requirement was laid out in a law adopted by Congress in 1995 designed to discourage frivolous securities fraud suits by making it easier for companies to get them thrown out of court.

The Tellabs lawsuit was subsequently reinstated by a U.S. appeals court. The Supreme Court, by an 8-1 vote, ruled the appeals court was wrong, with the majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

She said that to qualify as strong, an inference must be more than merely plausible or reasonable. It must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent, Justice Ginsburg said.

Tellabs had argued that under the 1995 reform law, federal courts must consider any facts that suggest any possible "innocent" motives, and that courts have to dismiss securities fraud cases that don't raise a "strong inference" of intentional wrongdoing.

Tellabs was supported by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department.

Lawyers for the investor plaintiffs had argued that their lawsuit laid out enough specific facts to show that Tellabs knew its best-selling product, a piece of networking equipment known as a cross-connect system, was in decline, but misled investors anyway.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying he thought it clear that the plaintiffs established probable cause to believe that Mr. Notebaert acted with the required intent.

Related listings

  • Ohio State's Lighty Pleads guilty to Assault

    Ohio State's Lighty Pleads guilty to Assault

    Lawyer Blogs 06/20/2007

    Ohio State basketball player David Lighty pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge and was fined $250 in a case involving a jogger who was shot with a BB gun last year.Two of Lighty’s former teammates at Villa Angela-St. Joseph High School in C...

  • Court sides with Wall Street banks

    Court sides with Wall Street banks

    Lawyer Blogs 06/18/2007

    [##_1L|1228701878.jpg|width="131" height="91" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court on Monday dealt a setback to investors suing over their losses in the crash of technology stocks seven years ago. In a 7-1 decision, the court sided with Wall Street banks tha...

  • Former ESL political boss pleads guilty in asbestos case

    Former ESL political boss pleads guilty in asbestos case

    Lawyer Blogs 06/18/2007

    A former Democratic political boss in East St. Louis is facing at least 15 more months in federal prison on environmental infractions -- on top of the 21 months he's already serving in a vote-fraud scheme.Charles Powell Junior has pleaded guilty in U...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

St Peters, MO Professional License Attorney Attorney John Lynch has been the go-to choice for many professionals facing administrative sanction. >> read