Should plaintiffs lawyers have to name a specific executive with fraudulent intent in order to proceed with a shareholder securities fraud suit against the company, or is it enough to hold a firm to account if any employee had the requisite guilty knowledge? The concept of "collective scienter," or guilty knowledge, as a basis for corporate liability has been rejected by the 5th and 9th circuits but embraced by the 6th. A 2nd Circuit case may clarify whether the issue dies or heads for the Supreme Court.
December 11, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Should plaintiffs lawyers have to name a specific executive with fraudulent intent in order to proceed with a shareholder securities fraud suit against the company, or is it enough to hold a firm to account if any employee had the requisite guilty knowledge?
Federal appeals courts have conflicting opinions about whether fraudulent intent must be determined by the state of mind of individual corporate officials or whether the collective knowledge of a corporation’s employees will suffice.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
