material（重大性质的）
所以这个构成要件的核心在于“重大事件”的标准：
（1）“there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would consider [the allegedly misstated or omitted fact] important in deciding whether to buy or sell”the securities at issue. See Azrielli v. Cohen Law Offices, 21 F.3d 512, 518 (2d Cir. 1994).
即 ， 被虚假陈述或者未披露的事实很大程度上会影响理性投资人买或卖该证券 。 或者：
（2）“When contingent or speculative future events are at issue, the materiality of those events depends on a balancing of both the indicated probability that the event will occur and the anticipated magnitude of the event in light of the totality of company activity.” See Castellano v. Young & Rubicam, Inc., 257 F.3d 171, 180 (2d Cir. 2001).
即 ， 如果涉及偶发或者推测性的未实际发生的事件 ， 事件重要性的标准在于衡量“事件发生的可能性”以及“根据公司总体情况而产生的预期影响的大小” 。
以一个常见的案件为例 ， 某个公司的CEO在季度会议上说“我判断我们公司的增长会持续变缓慢 ， 但是我们将会有能力提高增长” ， “我坚信我们的增长率在未来会跟上” ， 标准投资人不能将以上言论作为对预期增长率的保障 。 如果把两句话分开 ， 第二句话虽然是一个保证句 ， 但也应该放在整个背景下来判断 。
2 with scienter存在明知或者故意
需要说明的是 ， 这个明知或者故意has no bright-line rules（没有明确规定的标准） ， 需要通过事实比较得出 。 该一标准可以从以下两点分析来窥知一二：
（1）“by alleging facts to show that defendants had both motive and opportunity to commit fraud” ECA & Local 134 IBEW Joint Pension Trust of Chicago v. JP Morgan Chase Co., 553 F.3d 187, 198 (2d Cir. 2009)
即 ， 结合被告虚假陈述或者未履行披露义务的动机和时机；
（2） “by alleging facts that constitute strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.” South Cherry Street, LLC v. Hennessee Group LLC, 573 F.3d 98, 108 (2d Cir. 2009)
即 ， 有能证明故意实施错误行为的强有力证据 。
这些强有力证据包括：(1) benefited in a concrete and personal way from the purported fraud; (2) engaged in deliberately illegal behavior; (3) knew facts or had access to information suggesting that their public statements were not accurate; or (4) failed to check the information they had a duty to monitor.
即 ， 以具体和个人的方法从中受益；参与故意违法的行为；知道或者能够得知陈述是不精确的；或者有义务核查而没有核查信息 。
在强有力证据证明标准下 ， 还有另一个证明明知或者故意的可供参考的标准 ， 该标准仅供参考 。
“state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference” of the required state of mind.”
即 ， 必须存在一个能证明与提供强有力推断明知或者故意的特定事实 。
引自：15 U.S.C.S. § 78u-4 (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance through Public Law 116-108, approved January 24, 2020, with gaps of Public Law 116-92 and Public Law 116-94)
在 Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.案件中笔者找到了"strong inference"的判例解释：“determine whether the plaintiff has alleged facts that give rise to the requisite "strong inference" of scienter, a court must consider plausible, nonculpable explanations for the defendant's conduct, as well as inferences favoring the plaintiff. The inference that the defendant acted with scienter need not be irrefutable”