Narrative Opinion Summary
The plaintiffs' appeal of the district court's dismissal with prejudice of their securities fraud claim against Versant Object Technology, Inc. and its controlling persons is addressed. The court upheld the dismissal, finding that the Third Amended Consolidated Complaint failed to sufficiently plead facts that would create a strong inference of the defendants' deliberate recklessness, which is required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons detailed in its December 4, 2001 order. The order is designated as not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The order affirming the district court's decision is designated as not suitable for publication and has restrictions on citation within the circuit.
Reasoning: The order is designated as not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Securities Fraud Pleading Standards under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the dismissal of the securities fraud claim due to insufficient pleading of facts that would create a strong inference of defendants' deliberate recklessness.
Reasoning: The court upheld the dismissal, finding that the Third Amended Consolidated Complaint failed to sufficiently plead facts that would create a strong inference of the defendants' deliberate recklessness, which is required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.