Cox
Cox v. Viacom International Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiffs James and Cindy Cox appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse and remand.
The plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint sufficiently pled scienter to satisfy the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) with respect to both the initial mailing of the Notices and the subsequent correspondence with Bank employees. See 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)(2). The plaintiffs specified the material misstatement in the Notices about the date of mailing, and alleged that Ms. Thomas, the person responsible for mailing the Notices, worked in a position of some authority at the Bank of New York, knew the contents of the Notice, and knew about the Bank’s internal mail routing procedures. The plaintiffs further allege that on July 1, the Bank and certain of its employees, including Ms. Thomas, knew that the Notice had not been mailed on that day, and that the Bank caused postage meter stamps dated July 2 and 3, 2002, to be placed on the Notices. The plaintiffs also contend that after Mr. Cox tendered his debenture, Ms. Salovitch-Miller and Ms. Lubitz both knew at the…