City of Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund v. Meredith Corp., No. 20-3510 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Pension Fund's amended complaint in this securities fraud class action. The Pension Fund, as lead plaintiff, alleged securities fraud under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as controlling-person liability under section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
The court concluded that, 137 of the 138 statements listed in the amended complaint were clearly either (1) statements identified as forward looking and accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements, (2) corporate puffery, or (3) forward-looking statements that the complaint's allegations do not imply by strong inference were made with actual knowledge of their falsity. Furthermore, although the remaining statement comes closer than the other 137 to giving the Pension Fund a section 10(b) claim, it too falls short. The court explained that, even assuming arguendo the statement was false, the confidential former employee's allegation does not give rise to a strong inference of severe recklessness. Therefore, the complaint fails to satisfy the heightened pleading standards with respect to the misrepresentation and mental-state requirements of section 10(b) liability. Consequently, the section 20(b) claims were also properly dismissed. Finally, reviewing the issue of futility de novo, the court concluded that the district court properly denied leave to amend.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Stras, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Securities Fraud. The district court did not err in dismissing this action for failure to state a claim; 137 of the 138 statements in the amended complaint could not serve as the basis for Section 10(b) liability as they were either (1) clearly statements identified as forward looking and accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements, (2) corporate puffery, or (3) forward-looking statements that the complaint's allegations did not imply by strong inference were made with actual knowledge of their falsity; the remaining statement, while coming closer to giving the Fund a 10(b) claim falls short as the confidential former employee's allegation on which it is based does not give rise to a strong inference of severe recklessness; as a result, the complaint fails to satisfy the heightened pleading standards with respect to the misrepresentation and mental-state requirements of Sec. 10(b) liability; as the Fund's Sec. 20(b) claim was derivative of its Sec. 10(b) claim, it, too, was properly dismissed; reviewing the issue of futility de novo, the district court did not err in denying leave to amend the complaint.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.