April 20, 2008
Miller on Tellabs
Pleading After Tellabs, by GEOFFREY P. MILLER, New York University - School of Law, was recently posted on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., the Supreme Court held that a securities fraud complaint will survive a motion to dismiss only if a reasonable person would deem the inference of [culpable state of mind] cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged. This paper analyzes how the Tellabs test may be applied, identifies questions left open under the decision, and discusses broader implications of the opinion and the PSLRA. Among other things, the paper suggests that the PSLRA's heightened pleading rules have deformed the motion to dismiss to the point where it now operates in securities fraud cases as a hybrid falling somewhere in between the traditional Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 56 summary judgment procedures.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Miller on Tellabs: