Desaigoudar v. Meyercord

223 F.3d 1020 (2000)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Desaigoudar v. Meyercord

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
223 F.3d 1020 (2000)


Aarathi Desaigoudar (plaintiff) was the trustee of the Chan Desaigoudar Charitable Foundation (the foundation), which owned shares of California Micro Devices Corporation (CMD) stock. In September 1994, CMD entered into a contract with CellAccess, Inc., a company developing a special technology for electronically transferring information. CMD agreed to pay CellAccess $90,000 per month for one year in exchange for a 56 percent interest in the technology and the option to renew the contract. In April 1995, CMD terminated the monthly payments, relinquished its interest, and received a $1.5 million termination fee. Thereafter, in anticipation of the annual meeting in September 1995 to vote on the reelection of certain CMD officials (the CMD officials) (defendants), a proxy solicitation was posted stating that CMD had registered a quarterly profit for the first time in two years. In November 1995, FORE Systems, Inc., acquired CellAccess for $60 million. Desaigoudar subsequently sued the CMD officials for securities fraud pursuant to § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9. During the proceedings, Desaigoudar filed a second amended complaint (the complaint) alleging three grounds: first, that the CMD officials misled shareholders by announcing a quarterly profit because CMD would have lost money but for the terminated contract with CellAccess, which allegedly proved to be unwise; second, that the proxy materials failed to disclose one CMD official’s purported conflict of interest based on the official’s position with the Pittsburgh High Technology Council without any facts demonstrating that the official personally or financially benefited from the termination of the contract; and third, that the same CMD official was falsely held out as a director of a measurement-test company without any allegations as to why that background may have been important to voters. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for repeated failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the PSLRA). Desaigoudar appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Sneed, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership