University of Michigan Legal Working Paper Series
University of Michigan John M. Olin Center for Law & Economics Working Paper Series
What Counts as Fraud? An Empirical Study of Motions To Dismiss Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
Abstract
This article presents the findings of a study of the resolution of motions to dismiss securities fraud lawsuits since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995. Our sample consists of decisions on motions to dismiss in securities class actions by district and appellate courts in the Second and Ninth Circuits for cases filed after the passage of the Reform Act to the end of 2002. These circuits are the leading circuits for the filing of securities class actions and are generally recognized as representing two ends of the securities class action spectrum. Post-PSLRA, the Second Circuit applies the least restrictive pleading standard to securities claims and the Ninth Circuit applies the most restrictive. The Ninth Circuit’s post-PSLRA reputation as being a tougher venue in which to win securities fraud class actions is born out by a significantly higher dismissal rate. The differences between the two circuits are also reflected in factors that correlate with dismissal. For example, allegations of violations of accounting principles other than revenue recognition correlate negatively with dismissal in the Second Circuit. This coefficient, however, is insignificant in our regressions for the Ninth Circuit. Allegations of revenue recognition violations are insignificant in both circuits, whether or not the issuer has been forced to restate those revenues. The circuits part ways on other factors as well: the Second Circuit is significantly less likely to dismiss cases with allegations of false forward-looking statements, a surprising result given the stringent standards for such statements imposed by the PSLRA. The Ninth Circuit is significantly less likely to dismiss complaints with allegations of ’33 Act violations and the Second Circuit is more likely to dismiss cases brought by the Milberg Weiss firm. When it comes to insider trading, however, the two circuits are both skeptical and the allegations correlate with dismissal in both circuits.
Subject Area
Law and Economics
Recommended Citation
Adam C. Pritchard and Hillary Sale,
"What Counts as Fraud? An Empirical Study of Motions To Dismiss Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act"
(September 2003).
University of Michigan Legal Working Paper Series.
University of Michigan John M. Olin Center for Law & Economics Working Paper Series.
Working Paper 18.
http://law.bepress.com/umichlwps/olin/art18
No readers' reactions have been posted for this article. To submit one, copy the URL for this article (http://law.bepress.com/umichlwps/olin/art18) and click here.