Aiding and Abetting Liability Under State Securities Statutes

more+
less-

In Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court firmly closed the door on plaintiffs seeking to sue on the basis of aiding and abetting for federal securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Building on an earlier decision in which it held that Section 10(b) did not impose aiding and abetting liability, Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164 (1994), the Court clarified that secondary actors involved in securities transactions cannot be held liable based on the “scheme liability” theory. The Stoneridge decision was tremendously comforting to many professionals involved in securities transactions, such as attorneys and accountants, who had much to fear from an expansion of potentially devastating civil liability for federal securities fraud.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Lane Powell PC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

more+
less-

Lane Powell PC on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×
Loading...
×
×