1. In DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. BROUDO, 544 U.S. 336, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005), cited in Twombly, p. 571, supra, the Court held that a complaint under the Private Securities Law Reform Act will be dismissed unless plaintiff alleges that defendant’s misrepresentation caused plaintiff’s economic loss. In so holding, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s view that this requirement could be met by alleging that “the price” of the security “on the date of purchase was inflated because of the misrepresentation.”

The Court acknowledged, however, “at least for argument’s sake, that neither the Rules nor the securities statutes impose any special further requirement in respect to the pleading of proximate causation or economic loss.” Id. at 338 47, 125 S.Ct. at 1633 34, 161 L.Ed.2d at 586 88. Under Dura, what evidence must the complaint contain to survive dismissal? How much of this evidence is likely to be available through public information? See Spindler,Why Shareholders Want Their CEOs To Lie More AfterDura Pharmaceuticals, 95 Geo. L.J. 653, 657, 691 (2007)(arguing that Dura encourages fraud by effectively immunizing corporate activity from judicial review).