# Shapiro v. UJB Financial Corp.

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 20, 1992 · 964 F.2d 272

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9000877

## Case

- **Full name:** Irwin SHAPIRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UJB FINANCIAL CORP. T. Joseph Semrod and John R. Haggerty, Irwin Shapiro, Robert Bassman, Jerome Katz, Norman Salsitz, Jean Lee, of the Estate of Calvin Lee, and Chappaqua Family Trust
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** May 20, 1992
- **Citations:** 964 F.2d 272; 1992 WL 104528
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Scirica
- **Judges:** Alito, Becker, Cowen, Hutchinson, Mansmann, Nygaard, Roth, Scirica, Sloviter, Stapleton, Vanartsdalen
- **Cited by:** 161 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9000877

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- noting that courts should be “sensitive to the fact that application of [Rule 9(b)] prior to discovery may permit sophisticated defrauders to successfully conceal the details of their fraud.... They should also respect the general simplicity and flexibility of the Federal Rule…

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Present: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO and ROTH, Circuit Judges, and VanARTSDALEN * , District Judge.
The petition for rehearing filed by appellees in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court in banc, is denied.
BY THE COURT,
/s/ Anthony J. Scirica Circuit Judge
Dated: July 7, 1992.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9000877. Public record. Not legal advice.