material misrepresentation

Lexmark International, Inc. manufactures and sells laser printers along with the toner cartridges designed exclusively for those printers. It introduced a Prebate program that offered customers a 20-percent discount on new cartridges if they agreed to return the empty cartridges to Lexmark once used. The program terms were communicated to consumers through notices printed on the toner-cartridge boxes. Static Control Components, Inc. manufactures and sells components necessary for remanufacturers to refurbish used Lexmark toner cartridges. Static Control developed a microchip that could mimic the microchip in Lexmark Prebate cartridges, enabling remanufacturers to refurbish and resell those cartridges after replacing the original chip. In 2002 Lexmark sued Static Control alleging violations of the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Static Control counterclaimed under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, alleging that Lexmark misled end-users into believing they are legally bound by the Prebate terms. Static Control further alleged that Lexmark sent letters to remanufacturers falsely advising that it was illegal to sell refurbished Prebate cartridges and to use Static Control products. Static Control alleged that these statements caused it lost sales and damage to its business reputation. The district court granted Lexmark’s motion to dismiss the Lanham Act counterclaim on prudential standing grounds. The Sixth Circuit reversed after applying the reasonable-interest test. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the appropriate analytical framework.

Virginia law made it unprofessional conduct for a licensed pharmacist to publish, advertise, or promote any price for prescription drugs under Va. Code Ann. § 54-524.35(3). The Virginia State Board of Pharmacy regulated the profession to protect public health, safety, and welfare. It licensed pharmacists only after they showed good moral character, graduated from an approved school, completed up to twelve months of experience, and passed a Board examination. Licensed pharmacists remained subject to penalties or license revocation for negligence, fraud, or unprofessional conduct. Prescription drug prices varied sharply even within the same locality. In Richmond the cost of forty Achromycin tablets ranged from $2.59 to $6.00. In the Newport News-Hampton area the price of tetracycline ranged from $1.20 to $9.00. About ninety-five percent of prescriptions were filled with dosage forms prepared by manufacturers. Some pharmacies refused to quote prices over the telephone. An individual Virginia resident who suffered from diseases requiring daily prescription drugs, together with two nonprofit organizations whose members included many users of such drugs, brought suit against the Board and its members. The plaintiffs claimed the ban prevented them from learning where their limited resources could be spent most effectively. A prior challenge to the same statute brought by a drug retailer and one of its pharmacists had been rejected on due-process and equal-protection grounds. The three-judge District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia declared the quoted portion of the statute void and enjoined its enforcement. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of the Board's appeal.

Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, served as lead plaintiff in a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of Charter Communications, Inc., common stock. The suit named as defendants Charter itself, some of its executives, its independent auditor Arthur Andersen LLP, and two other companies that had acted as both suppliers and customers of Charter. Charter, a cable operator, engaged in a variety of fraudulent accounting practices throughout 2000 so that its quarterly reports would meet Wall Street expectations for subscriber growth and operating cash flow. By late 2000 Charter executives realized that these practices would still leave the company short of projected operating cash flow by fifteen to twenty million dollars. To close the gap, Charter entered into arrangements with Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., and Motorola, Inc., under which Charter overpaid the respondents twenty dollars for each digital cable converter box it purchased through the end of the year. In return, the respondents agreed to purchase advertising time from Charter at prices higher than fair value, with the transactions documented through backdated contracts and false statements about increased production costs. The arrangements had no economic substance, yet Charter recorded the advertising purchases as revenue and capitalized its purchases of the set-top boxes, thereby inflating reported revenues and operating cash flow by approximately seventeen million dollars on financial statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and disseminated to the public. Respondents had no role in preparing or disseminating Charter's financial statements, and they recorded the transactions as a wash on their own books under generally accepted accounting principles. It is alleged that respondents knew or were in reckless disregard of Charter's intention to use the transactions to mislead research analysts and investors. The District Court granted respondents' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the allegations showed at most aiding and abetting by respondents. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment.