Law360, New York (June 2, 2015, 1:48 PM EDT) -- Lawyers in federal court have a "nondelegable responsibility" under Rule 11 to "validate the truth and legal reasonableness of the papers" they file in court.[1] Can a lawyer comply with that duty by filing a complaint that borrows allegations from another complaint that he or she has not personally verified? The question arises frequently in securities cases, where plaintiffs often tag along after government investigations and must draft complaints meeting heightened pleading standards. Courts are divided as to whether and to what extent "piggybacking" of another complaint is proper. A recent decision from Judge Shira Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York reflects an interesting middle-ground approach: she allowed a piggybacked complaint to proceed, but required the plaintiffs to detail their independent investigation in an updated complaint....
Law360 is on it, so you are, too.
A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.
