- Judicial Selection
- Voting Rights Act
- Marriage Equality
- Fixing the Senate
- The Corporate Court
- Supreme Court Ethics Reform
- Access to Justice
- Crude Justice
Your contribution supports a fair legal system & access to justice.Donate Today »
Receive updates on current initiatives and breaking news.
Credit Suisse Securities, et. al v. Simmonds
What’s at stake?
The ability of investors to bring securities fraud suits for insider trading.
Whether the deadline to file insider trading suits is put on hold until the insider publicly discloses the trades.
March 26, 2012
8-0 in favor of Credit Suisse. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court, in which all other members joined, except Chief Justice Roberts, who recused.
What the Court held:
The case arises out of a series of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) during the tech bubble of the late 1990s. The plaintiff, Vanessa Simmonds, was an investor who owned tech stocks underwritten by Credit Suisse and other investment banks. Simmonds alleges that underwriters for these IPOs manipulated stock prices using short-swing transactions in violation of the insider trading laws.
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the insider trading law’s two-year time limit to bring suits begins to run when the profit is realized by insiders or when the required public disclosures are filed. Credit Suisse argued that actions must be brought within two years of the profits being realized and therefore Simmonds’ suit was time-barred. Simmonds argued that because insiders never filed the required disclosures when the profit was realized, the two-year limitations period never began to run. The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the two-year limit had expired, but the Ninth Circuit agreed with Simmonds and reversed.
The Supreme Court, reversing the Ninth Circuit, held that the two-year statute of limitations continues to run, even when corporate insiders have failed to make the public disclosures that would give notice of the insider trading. While leaving open the possibility that traditional equitable tolling principles could apply in a case like this, the Court has nonetheless made it easier for corporate insiders to avoid liability for their illegal insider trading activity simply by violating the disclosure requirement.