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.

Written by:


Lane Powell PC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
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*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.