Supreme Court DIGs NVIDIA

The Court seems uninterested in resolving at least some securities fraud disputes.

This morning the Supreme Court dismissed NVIDIA v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB as improvidently granted. This was the Supreme Court's second DIG of the term. Indeed, it was the Court's second DIG in a securities fraud case. Two weeks ago, the justices DIGged Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank.

For those keeping track, here are the questions presented that the Court will no longer resolve this term.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) imposes "[e]xacting pleading requirements" on plaintiffs who file securities fraud class actions. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 313 (2007). To state a claim, plaintiffs must "state with particularity all facts" supporting their allegations of falsity and must also allege "facts giving rise to a strong inference" of the required mental state. 15 U.S.C § 78u-4(b)(1), (2)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Plaintiffs frequently try to meet these requirements by claiming that internal company documents contradicted the company's public statements. This petition presents two questions that have divided the circuits about how the PSLRA's requirements apply in this common and recurring context:

1. Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the PSLRA based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents.

2. Whether plaintiffs can satisfy the PSLRA's falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.

Comments

[Roger S]

I think the case is about a shareholder complaint that the company did not adequately warn about bitcoin mining volatility. There ought to be better reasons for dismissing it.

[John F. Carr]

I checked out coverage of oral argument. Several justices asked whether they were merely being asked to correct an error, a task beneath their dignity. The court advises litigants that it does not want to hear requests to correct an erroneous application of a correctly stated rule of law.

I think the court should be obliged to consider a few ordinary cases every term even at the expense of a case about whether transgender abortionists can have guns.

[TheAmazingEmu]

Honestly, I'm not a fan of Per Curiam decisions without oral argument, but error correction is the precise vehicle for that. If they've already done oral arguments, they should just issue the error correcting opinion. Lower courts need correction from time to time and the bulk of the work was done. Just issue a short opinion stating the law and how the lower court incorrectly applied it and move on.