Pleading Common Law Fraud in the Second Circuit

, New York Law Journal


Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's Daniel L. Brockett and Jeremy D. Andersen write: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is clear on its face: "Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally." Nonetheless, almost 40 years after the rule's adoption, the Second Circuit began requiring plaintiffs to plead facts giving rise to a "strong inference" of scienter.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202572737590

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.