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
Lawyer Blogs 06/20/2007Ohio 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
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
Lawyer Blogs 06/18/2007A 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...
Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?
IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child.
Forte Law Group is one of only a very few law firms within the state of Connecticut that is dedicated to exclusively representing families and children with special needs.
Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.
