Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Nvidia Securities Suit On Pleading Standards Issues | The D&O Diary

While I am sure the plaintiffs are griped that the Court granted cert in this case, the company did make a valid point that it would create quite a mess in the securities litigation arena if there were to be a split between the Second and the Ninth circuits on issues as important as pleading scienter and falsity. The company correctly pointed out in its petition that in fact most of the securities litigation that is filed is filed in either the Second or Ninth Circuits. Diverging views on key securities issues between these two circuits could be quite disruptive and presents the prospect of diverging outcomes in similar cases simply because of the circuit in which the case was filed.

Indeed, in a particularly interesting aspect of the pleadings filed in connection with the company’s petition, Stanford Law Professor Joseph Grundfest, in an amicus brief filed in support of the company’s petition, argued that a statistical analysis is possible to support the court’s consideration of whether a split between the circuits in sufficiently important to warrant the Court’s review of a question. Grundfest argued that given the Second and Ninth Circuit’s “market share” predominance in securities litigation, the split between the two Circuits on the questions here particularly justified the Court’s taking up the case.

Source: Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Nvidia Securities Suit On Pleading Standards Issues | The D&O Diary