Case Citator › PR Diamonds, Inc. v. Chandler

PR Diamonds, Inc. v. Chandler

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

Overruled in part
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
364 F.3d 671
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
35 of 35
Citing cases (total)
35
Treatment dates
2007–2011
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Two parts of PR Diamonds, Inc. v. Chandler's securities fraud pleading analysis are no longer good law. All 35 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. rejected the requirement that scienter be the most plausible inference; Frank v. Dana Corp. later identified PR Diamonds's practice of examining allegations one by one before considering them together and declined to follow it. These rulings are listed below. Later opinions continue to use PR Diamonds's separate rules on recklessness and requests for leave to amend.

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.

35 later cases cite PR Diamonds, Inc. v. Chandler; 35 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 PR Diamonds, Inc. v. Chandler?

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 Supreme Court rejected the scienter threshold PR Diamonds had applied: the inference of fraud need only be at least as compelling as any opposing inference, rather than the most plausible one.

    Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The inference that the defendant acted with scienter need not be irrefutable, i. e., of the “smoking-gun” genre, or even the “most plausible of competing inferences,” Fidel, 392 F. 3d, at 227 (quoting Helwig v. Vencor, Inc., 251 F. 3d 540, 553 (CA6 2001) (en banc)). Recall in this regard that §21D(b)’s pleading requirements are but one constraint among many the PSLRA installed to screen out frivolous suits, while allowing meritorious actions to move forward. See supra, at 320-321, and n. 4. Yet the inference of scienter must be more than merely “reasonable” or “permissible” — it must be cogent and compelling, thus strong in light of other explanations. A complaint will survive, we hold, only if- a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.5
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • Applying later Supreme Court decisions, the Sixth Circuit declined to follow PR Diamonds's method of reviewing each scienter allegation separately before assessing the allegations together.

    Frank v. Dana Corp. · Sixth Circuit · filed

    In the past, we have conducted our scienter analysis in section 10(b) cases by sorting through each allegation individually before concluding with a collective approach. Cf. Konkol, 590 F.3d at 397-404; Ley v. Visteon Corp., 543 F.3d 801, 809-14 (6th Cir. 2008); PR Diamonds, Inc., 364 F.3d at 684. However, we decline to follow that approach in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 131 S. Ct. 1309 (2011).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads PR Diamonds, Inc. v. Chandler 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