How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Maverick Your Own Question
Maverick, Attorney
Category: Business Law
Satisfied Customers: 6390
Experience:  20 years of professional experience
Type Your Business Law Question Here...
Maverick is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Are there any cases that the SEC has lost where seconday persons

Resolved Question:

Are there any cases that the SEC has lost where seconday persons did not have scienter?
Submitted: 8 years ago.
Category: Business Law
Expert:  Maverick replied 8 years ago.

Please review this discussion about scienter and let me know what other questions you may have.






Scienter is "a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud," n29 and under 10b-5 the plaintiff must allege that the defendant possessed this scienter at the time of a material misstatement or omission. n30 A corporate actor's mere negligence when making such a misrepresentation [*1601] does not satisfy the scienter pleading requirement, n31 although an allegation of recklessness is sufficient. n32

Despite the fine lines courts often draw between intent and knowledge or recklessness and negligence, one common denominator prevails: "the inevitable mention of a "person' in whom [intent] resides." n33 While the law generally recognizes a corporation as a "person," n34 courts must still determine how a corporation may possess the mental state required to prove scienter. A court's approach to corporate scienter may thus play a pivotal role in determining the viability of a plaintiff's case in the face of a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6) motion. n35

FRCP pleading standards generally adhere to a low standard of notice, requiring only a "short and plain statement" showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. n36 The federal rules require, however, that averments of fraud state "the circumstances constituting fraud ... with particularity." n37 The complaint must specifically identify the alleged fraudulent statements, the party making the statements, the time when the statements were made, and why the statements were fraudulent. n38 The particularity requirement ensures that the defendant receives fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and creates a safeguard against frivolous allegations of wrongdoing. n39 Notably, the FRCP 9(b) particularity standard applies to the [*1602] fraudulent act, but not to the state of mind of the individual perpetrating the fraud. n40

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 implemented heightened standards for pleading fraud in securities litigation. n41 The PSLRA first addressed fraudulent acts by establishing a "clarity and basis" requirement, n42 closely paralleling the particularity requirement under FRCP 9(b). The "clarity and basis" provision required the complaint to "specify each statement alleged to have been misleading ... [and] the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading." n43

Further, the PSLRA's new "strong inference" language raised the pleading standards for scienter (from those previously required under FRCP 9(b)) by mandating that a complaint "state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference [of scienter]." n44 At a minimum, courts agree that the strong inference standard does not require pleading evidence, n45 or even "forecloseing all other "characterizations of fact.'" n46 The complaint, however, must at least allege facts that surpass a "reasonable" inference of scienter. n47 Beyond such common denominators, there is conflict in characterizing the PSLRA standard. While an allegation of the defendant's motive and opportunity may be sufficient, courts have declined to deem such an allegation as satisfying the PSLRA standard. n48 A number of courts also suggest that the PSLRA scienter criterion may be [*1603] met by pleading recklessness or by alleging "facts giving rise to a strong inference of recklessness." n49 Although Congress has not yet adopted a universal definition for the strong inference standard, PSLRA has clearly raised the FRCP (9)(b) bar for pleading scienter in securities litigation.

Customer: replied 8 years ago.



You told me about scienter, but I didn't see any cases that the SEC loss. Could you sight any cases?

Expert:  Maverick replied 8 years ago.
Could probably find one but you need a lawyer who has access to Westlaw or Lexis Nexis database which are a fee based service.
Customer: replied 8 years ago.

Thank you.

I'll accept your answer, except that my question to "just answer" was about Cases the SEC loss. Some of the laws you mention are things that pop up on Gooogle. The fact that you don't have law books or whatever is needed, but instead say that I need someone with access to the information. I would think a lawyer or "just answer" would have access to the tools needed to run-your-business as a matter of course. It is like hearing from a carpenter that the job requires a hammer, but he does not have one.


Oh well, I used your service this time, but probably would not in the future. You may be good attorneys', but your business model probably will not susceed. I doubt your company will get much repeat business from the public.


Good luck to you & thank you for the information that you did provide,


Mike Norton

Expert:  Maverick replied 8 years ago.
Maverick and other Business Law Specialists are ready to help you