This Comment advocates a purposivist reading of the scienter requirement in private securities litigation. Section II.A of this comment provides an overview of securities litigation and the relevant laws, including the PSLRA. Section II.B illustrates how the core provisions of the PSLRA advantage defendants by comparing the core provisions of the Act to the law as it stood before the PSLRA and to other alternatives available to Congress. Section II.C describes the importance of purposivism in interpreting securities laws. Section II.C concludes that any reading of the ambiguous scienter requirement that favors securities litigation plaintiffs is inconsistent with the crux of the Act and the policy of federal securities laws. Section III.A describes the pre-PSLRA circuit split, whereas Section III.B describes the post-PSLRA circuit split and describes why the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of scienter is the sole interpretation that is consistent with the crux of the Act. Section IV concludes with a recommendation that the United States Supreme Court grant certiorari and adopt the Ninth Circuit's articulated scienter requirement should the issue present itself for appellate review.
Private Securities Litigation Reform Failure: How Scienter Has Prevented The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 from Achieving Its Goals,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol42/iss2/15