October Term 2024 · Docket 23-970

Does the PSLRA require specific evidence of intent to deceive in securities fraud complaints?

NVIDIA argues the Ninth Circuit applied too low a standard for pleading scienter. The investor fund argues the complaint met the statutory requirement for particularity.

Official caption
NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    NVIDIA's counsel argued the Ninth Circuit's standard was dangerously low.

    The fund's counsel argued the complaint contained specific facts about gaming revenues.

    Justice Jackson asked why specific data points were necessary for the claim.

    Justice Sotomayor asked the advocate to state the specific rule they wanted adopted.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the pleading standard for securities fraud. The dispute centers on whether a complaint must identify specific evidence of intent to deceive. The lower court found the complaint sufficient. NVIDIA seeks reversal. The fund seeks affirmance.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 13, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

NVIDIA wants the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit decision.

The fund wants the Supreme Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit decision.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

NVIDIA argues the complaint lacked the specific evidence of intent required by the PSLRA.

The fund argues the complaint contained sufficient factual detail to satisfy the pleading standard.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked what a compliant complaint would look like under heightened standards.

Justice Jackson questioned whether plaintiffs must possess evidence before pleading their case.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the evidentiary threshold for securities fraud claims. It determines how much detail plaintiffs must provide at the pleading stage. The outcome shapes the balance between access to courts and protection from baseless suits.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON