Supreme Court to review securities class action time limits
A New York district court and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favors of the defendants in 2013, but another entity that was not involved in the initial suit is trying to revive it based on a previous Supreme Court ruling.
March 11, 2014 at 07:54 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The time limits to joining securities class action lawsuits have historically been justified for limiting the cost and time that a case could potentially eat up. Now the United States Supreme Court has decided to review those limits to determine whether or not time restrictions should be acceptable when a company misses a deadline but was part of similar but previously dismissed case.
The case in question started with a number of institutional investors filing a class action suit against mortgage securities that were tied to IndyMac MBS Inc., which failed during the financial crisis in 2008. The defendants in the initial suit were the underwriters for the securities and included heavyweights like Goldman Sachs Inc. and Morgan Stanley.
A New York district court and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favors of the defendants in 2013, but another entity that was not involved in the initial suit is trying to revive it based on a previous Supreme Court ruling.
The Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi hopes to resurrect the case based on a 1974 decision that says that when a new entity files a class action before a three year deadline has elapsed, it removes the statute of limitations for all previously involved class members. This was done to prevent the proliferation of additional lawsuits; however there were no specific details relating to cases that had already received judgment or been dismissed.
Defendants say that the 1974 decision from the case American Pipe & Construction Co v. Utah does not override the 1933 Securities Act, which outlines more specific details on when and how class action suits may proceed.
The review of this case is expected in October and could change limitations on time restrictions previously associated with class action lawsuits.
This is the latest of multiple class action cases that the SCOTUS is anticipated to offer their thoughts on this year. One, involving Halliburton would make validate or reject the concept of “fraud on the market” which currently allows securities calls actions to be filed without plaintiff's needing to show that they relied on financial statements to make their investment decisions.
For more on class action suits check out these stories:
The top 12 securities class action settlements of 2013
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute read
In-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
