Opinion ID: 31529
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: plead with particularity what the person making the misrepresentation obtained thereby; and

Text: 63 (6) explain the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, i.e., why the statement is fraudulent. 64 Id. at 350. 65 The plaintiff must also plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2), that defendants acted with scienter, which is a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 193 n. 12, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976). Scienter also includes severe recklessness, which this Court has defined as limited to those highly unreasonable omissions or misrepresentations that involve not merely simple or even inexcusable negligence, but an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care, and that present a danger of misleading buyers or sellers which is either known to the defendant or is so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it. Nathenson, 267 F.3d at 408 (quoting Broad v. Rockwell, 642 F.2d 929, 961 (5th Cir. Apr. 1981)). If the plaintiff does not plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter, the PSLRA directs that the district court shall ... dismiss the complaint. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(A). 66 Under Section 21E of the PSLRA, a defendant will not be liable for forward-looking statements, where the forward-looking statement is identified as a forward-looking statement, and is accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(A)(ii) (safe harbor). 67