J. J. Blonien & Associates, Inc. v. Community Newspapers, Inc.

stating that pleading with particularity “[m]eans the who, what, when, where, and how: the first paragraph of any newspaper story.” | requiring the pleader to provide the equivalent of a “first paragraph of any newspaper story” | requiring the pleader to provide the equivalent of a “first paragraph of any newspaper story” | requiring the pleader to provide the equivalent of a "first paragraph of any newspaper story" | requiring the pleader to provide the equivalent of a “first paragraph of any newspaper story” | requiring the pleader to provide the equivalent of a “first paragraph of any newspaper story” | requiring the pleader to provide the equivalent of a “first paragraph of any newspaper story” | requiring the pleader to provide the equivalent of a “first paragraph of any newspaper story” | requiring the pleader to provide the equivalent of a “first paragraph of any newspaper story” | requiring the pleader to provide the equivalent of a “first paragraph of any newspaper story” | “Fees for two years' audits could not approach the losses E & W would suffer from a perception that it would muffle a client's fraud.” | accountant under no legal duty to blow whistle on client upon discovery that client was in financial trouble | investors must point to some fact suggesting that [the] difference [between favorable projections and actual health] is attributable to fraud | "People sometimes act irrationally, but indulging ready inferences of irrationality would too easily allow the inference that ordinary business reverses are fraud” | “‘[C]ircumstances’ must be pleaded in detail. This means the who, what, when, where, and how: the first paragraph of any newspaper story.” | "[T]he complaint ... must afford a basis for believing that plaintiffs could prove scienter." | "because only a fraction of financial deterioration reflect fraud, investors must point to some facts suggesting that the difference is attributable to fraud" | Generally, only a fraction of financial deteriorations reflects fraud. Investors must point to some facts suggesting that the difference between facts in documents and reality is attributable to fraud | although states of mind may be pleaded generally, the circumstances or the “who, what, when, where, and how” must be pleaded in detail | securities fraud claim not sufficiently pled when based solely upon a company’s rosy projections followed by less favorable predictions. | “[T]he complaint ... must afford a basis for believing that plaintiffs could prove scienter.” | Generally, only a fraction of financial deteriorations reflects fraud. Investors must point to some facts suggesting that the difference between facts in documents and reality is attributable to fraud | "The story in this complaint is familiar in securities litigation. At one time the firm bathes itself in a favorable light. Later the firm discloses that things are less rosy. The plaintiff contends that the difference must be attributable to fraud.” | applying Fed. R.Civ.P. 9(b) standard