Case Citator › Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc.

Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
818 F.2d 1433
Decided
Confirmed treatments
5
Flagged citations read
131 of 131
Citing cases (total)
751
Treatment dates
1990–2010
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc. was overruled in part on the need to prove a control person's culpable participation under § 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Ninth Circuit later confirmed that Wool's separate power-to-control analysis remains intact.
More on how this was screened

Other courts declined to follow the participation requirement, one court rejected Wool's group pleading presumption under the later securities statute, and the Ninth Circuit declined to extend a Wool pleading principle to a False Claims Act claim. All 131 flagged citations have been read; five confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

751 later cases cite Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc.; 131 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The en banc Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff need not show culpable participation to establish a broker-dealer's control-person liability under § 20(a), displacing that part of Wool.

    Hollinger v. Titan Capital Corp. · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    Today, however, we hold that a plaintiff is not required to show “culpable participation” to establish that a broker-dealer was a controlling person under § 20(a).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Superseded by statute

  • The district court held that the later Private Securities Litigation Reform Act displaced Wool's presumption that corporate officers collectively made group-published statements.

    In re Lockheed Martin Corp. Securities Litigation · C.D. Cal. · filed

    According to Ninth Circuit case law that pre-dates the PSLRA: ... Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1440 (9th Cir.1987) (citations omitted). ... The group-published information doctrine is inconsistent with the PSLRA because it requires courts to accept a plaintiffs belief regarding the individual liability of a corporate officer even when the belief is based on the officer’s job title alone.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The District of Massachusetts chose a § 20(a) rule that did not require the culpable participation attributed to Wool.

    Rand v. M/A-COM, Inc. · D. Mass. · filed

    while courts in other circuits require some degree of culpable participation in the' fraudulent acts in’ order to find liability. See, e.g., Wool v. Tandem Computers Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1440-1442 (9th Cir.1987); ... It is unnecessary to show actual participation in the alleged securities law violation. ... In the absence of further guidance from the First Circuit, this court will therefore follow the Bray decision.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The District of Columbia court declined to require plaintiffs to prove culpable participation under § 20(a), contrary to Wool's formulation.

    In re The Baan Co. Securities Litigation · D.D.C. · filed

    but see Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1440 (9th Cir.1987) (requiring culpable participation). Requiring plaintiffs to establish more would erode the distinction between direct liability under 10(b) and control person liability under 20(a).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Ninth Circuit declined to extend Wool's limited relaxation of Rule 9(b) in corporate securities fraud cases to the False Claims Act claim before it.

    Ebeid ex rel. United States v. Lungwitz · Ninth Circuit · filed

    Wool v. Tandem Computers Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1439 (9th Cir. 1987); Deutsch v. Flannery, 823 F.2d 1361, 1366 (9th Cir. 1987)). We are not persuaded that this limited principle should be applied in this case.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace