Shapiro v. UJB Financial Corp.

How later courts described this case

• holding “no practical purpose would be served” in dismissing an appeal where defendants did not question the appeal’s timeliness and where there was but little doubt that the district court would, on remand, dismiss the claims with prejudice rather than revise its ruling
• holding that based on allegations of knowing and reckless behavior, “[t]he only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that plaintiffs charge defendants with fraud. There is not a hint in the allegations that defendants were negligent in violating §§ 11 and 12(2).”
• explaining that Rule 9(b) has stringent pleading requirements, but “the courts should be ‘sensitive’ to the fact that application of the Rule prior to discovery ‘may permit sophisticated defrauders to successfully conceal the details of their fraud’” (citation omitted)
• finding that the plaintiffs did not allege ordinary negligence but alleged “averments” of fraud by referencing the defendants’ intentional and reckless misrepresentation of material facts

Written by the judges who cited it.