Supreme Court Update: Two Securities Law Decisions This Week, and Another to Come

by Akerman LLP

The United States Supreme Court has taken a keen interest in the securities arena this current term, agreeing to hear at least three cases (of only approximately 70 in total). This week, the Supreme Court announced decisions in two securities cases – one involving class certification in private actions, and the other involving the statute of limitations for enforcement claims by the Securities & Exchange Commission. The Supreme Court also recently agreed to hear another case seeking to impose further restrictions on securities class actions.

Materiality at the Class Certification Stage

Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds addressed the standard for class certification in securities actions. Last term, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Supreme Court indicated that the underlying merits of a case may be considered at the class certification stage. Now in Amgen, the Supreme Court refused to extend that reasoning to securities class actions involving the fraud-on-the-market theory of reliance.

At the trial level, the named plaintiffs alleged that common issues predominated among the proposed class because of the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance on public, material misrepresentations. The defendants countered that the presumption depends on the materiality of the alleged misrepresentations and, therefore, the court must take up the issue of materiality at the class certification stage. In its opinion issued this week, the Supreme Court rejected the defendants' attempt to accelerate materiality to the class certification stage because materiality is evaluated under an objective standard common to the class, and is an essential element of a securities fraud claim common to the class.

The Court also rejected the defendants' policy arguments to curtail the "strike suit" nature of securities fraud class actions. The Court relied on what Congress had (and had not) already done to address these concerns in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). Of particular note, Congress rejected overt attempts to undo the fraud-on-the-market presumption when drafting the PSLRA. The Court saw no reason "for the judiciary to make its own further adjustments" when Congress already had legislated in response to these very concerns. Indeed, by espousing private securities actions as "an essential supplement to criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement actions," the Court insinuated that it would not independently contribute to the wave of restrictions on securities fraud class actions.

Limitations on Regulatory Enforcement Actions

Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission, another case decided this week, interpreted the five-year time period in which the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) can seek civil penalties in enforcement actions.

Under a catch-all limitations period, SEC enforcement actions seeking civil penalties must be “commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2462. In the underlying case, the SEC filed an enforcement action more than five years after the wrongdoing, but within five years of when the wrongdoing was apparently discovered by the SEC. The question was thus whether accrual under Section 2462 occurs upon the occurrence of the wrongdoing or, as in other fraud contexts, its discovery. In an unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court refused to graft the discovery rule onto Section 2462, and held that "the five-year clock begins to tick when the fraud is complete."

The key distinction driving the opinion is that the SEC is a "prosecutor seeking penalties," not an injured victim itself. First, the Court found that the discovery rule, as an exception to statutes of limitations, exists primarily to protect victims that would have no reason to suspect fraud. On the other hand, the SEC has a "central mission" to root out fraud and "has many legal tools at hand to aid in that pursuit." Second, the different types of relief warrant different time limits. Whereas a private fraud victim seeks compensation, the SEC seeks penalties that intend to punish and publicly label defendants as wrongdoers. Third, there are practical difficulties in applying the discovery rule to regulators, including the definition of the relevant actor, judgment calls on agency resource constraints, and invocation of special evidentiary privileges.

The Court's ruling could have ramifications far beyond the securities context, given the fact that Section 2462 applies to other agencies. Any time a government agency seeks fines, penalties or forfeiture in its enforcement (as opposed to victim) capacity, absent another statutory mandate, the agency must take action within five years of the act itself regardless of its discoverability.

The "Connection" Requirement for Class Action Preemption

Chadbourne & Parke v. Troice, Willis of Colorado v. Troice, and Proskauer Rose v. Troice are consolidated cases that will address the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), which was enacted in 1998 to curb the increase in filing of class action securities cases in state court to avoid the strictures of the PSLRA. Specifically, SLUSA precludes any "covered class action" based on state law that alleged a misrepresentation or omission of material fact "in connection with" the purchase or sale of a "covered security." The federal circuit courts had split in their interpretation of the "connection" requirement in this provision. Just last month, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in these consolidated cases to resolve this conflict.

In the underlying cases, the Fifth Circuit addressed whether the actions were precluded under SLUSA as ones alleging fraud "in connection with" a covered security. The court noted the split among at least six circuit courts, which have adopted standards ranging from fraud allegations that “necessarily involve” (Second Circuit), “depend on” (Sixth Circuit), "more than but for" (Seventh Circuit), "relate to" (Eighth Circuit), are “more than tangentially related to" (Ninth Circuit) or “are induced by” (Eleventh Circuit), transactions in covered securities. The Fifth Circuit sided with the Ninth Circuit's "tangentially related" test, applied that test to the specific facts, held that there was no preclusion under SLUSA, and remanded the actions to state court.

The Supreme Court has agreed to resolve this wide conflict among the circuit courts. Although the ultimate determination of "connection" is heavily fact-specific and the circuit conflict may be largely semantic, at least the Supreme Court is expected to clarify what standard is to be applied for SLUSA preemption.


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.

© Akerman LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Akerman LLP

Akerman LLP 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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*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.