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
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute read
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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
