Supreme Court Rejects "Scheme Liability" in Section 10(b) Securities Cases


In a widely-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court yesterday refused to expand the implied private right of action for securities fraud under Section 10(b) to include investor claims for socalled “scheme” liability against those who advise or do business with securities issuers. In

Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., No. 06-43 (U.S. January 15, 2008), the Court held that Section 10(b) does not permit investors to recover from a “secondary” party that allegedly participates in a fraudulent scheme with an issuer, unless that party violates a duty to disclose in doing so, or the investors relied on that party’s public misstatements or acts.

In other words, defrauded investors cannot use Section 10(b) to sue business advisors or firms who did not directly mislead the investors, but who nevertheless worked with issuers that did. The Court’s decision in Stoneridge thus curbs the threat of vastly-expanded potential securities

law liability, not just for the issuer’s investment bankers, lawyers, accountants, and other advisors, but also for any firm that is or was a vendor, customer or business partner of the issuer.

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

Published In: Securities Updates

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

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »