X hits on this document





17 / 47

respect to scienter, under the “strong inference” of scienter standard set forth in the

PSLRA, scienter allegations of a § 10(b) claim will survive a motion to dismiss “if a

reasonable person would deem the inference cogent and at least as compelling as any

opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.” Tellabs v. Makor Issues &

Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007).

In the Eleventh Circuit, it is well-established that the element of scienter requires

a showing of either an “intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud” or “severe

recklessness.” Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2008);

Bryant, 187 F.3d at 1284. Severe recklessness requires more than “inexcusable

negligence.” Ziemba, 256 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir. 2001). The Eleventh Circuit has

defined “severe recklessness” as “those highly unreasonable omissions or

misrepresentations that involve not merely simple or even inexcusable negligence, but

an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care, and that present a danger of

misleading buyers or sellers which is either known to the defendant or is so obvious that

the defendant must have been aware of it.” Bryant, 187 F.3d at 1282 n. 18; McDonald

v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co., 863 F.2d 809, 814 (11th Cir. 1989).

With respect to causation, the PSLRA “expressly imposes on plaintiffs ‘the

burden of proving’ that the defendant's misrepresentations ‘caused the loss for which

the plaintiff seeks to recover.’ ” Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 345-46,

(2005) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(4)). “Loss causation ‘is the causal link between

the alleged misconduct and the economic harm ultimately suffered by the plaintiff.’ ”

Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 396 F.3d 161, 172 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Emergent

Capital Inv. Mgmt., LLC v. Stonepath Group, Inc., 343 F.3d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 2005)).


Document info
Document views88
Page views88
Page last viewedWed Oct 26 11:21:18 UTC 2016