Court Declines To Apply Rule 9(b) To Section 25401 Claim

A complaint alleging securities fraud under Rule 10b-5 must meet the stringent pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  In re Verifone Holdings Securities Litig., 704 F. 3d 694, 701 (9th Cir. 2012).  These are the twin rocks on which many a poorly drafted securities fraud complaint have come to grief.  Rule 9(b) provides:

In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.  Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.

In a recent ruling, U.S. District Court David O. Carter decided that FRCP Rule 9(b) does not apply to claims alleging violations of Corporations Code Section 25401.  Cutler v. Rancher Energy Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34622 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014).  Almost a year ago, Judge Jesus G. Bernal reached the opposite conclusion in Yee v. NIVS Intellimedia Tech. Group, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46128 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013).

Judge Carter’s opinion quotes Section 25401 as follows:

It is unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of a security, directly or indirectly, to . . . (b) Make an untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.

The statute is quoted accurately, but I’m nonetheless surprised.  I’m surprised for two reasons.

First, the complaint in the Cutler case was filed in June of last year - before the statute was amended and the amendments took effect.  Cal. Stats. 2013, c. 335, § 6.

Second, I’m surprised because the legislative history states that the change was to “to ensure consistency with more comprehensive, federal anti-fraud statutes”.  SB 538 (Hill) Assembly Floor Analysis, Sept. 3, 2013.  If Rule 9(b) applies to Rule 10b-5 claims and Section 25401 was amended to be consistent with Rule 10b-5, doesn’t it follow that Rule 9(b) should now apply to claims under Section 25401?


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.