United States Third Circuit

In a shareholders securities action, district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff's complaint successfully specified the reasons why defendants' pricing-pressure statements and March projections were false or misleading, but failed to prove the other forecast-related statements were false or misleading; and 2) plaintiffs successfully proved scienter with respect to the March pricing statement as the claim stated with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendants acted consciously or recklessly in making false statements, but did not allege scienter adequately with respect to defendants' other pricing statements.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/03/2008
• Decided 04/30/2009
• Published 04/30/2009

Judges

• Before:  SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FISHER and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Sanford Svetcov, Esquire, (Argued), Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, San Francisco, CA, for Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Steven M. Schatz, Esquire, (Argued), Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Palo Alto, CA, Kerri E. Chewning, Esquire, Archer & Greiner Haddonfield, NJ, for Appellees.