Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds

Last updated
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 29, 2011
Decided March 26, 2012
Full case name Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Vanessa Simmonds
Docket no. 10-1261
Citations566 U.S. 221 ( more )
132 S. Ct. 1414; 182 L. Ed. 2d 446; 80 U.S.L.W. 4269
Case history
Prior638 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 564 U.S. 1036(2011).
SubsequentOn remand, 678 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2012).
Holding
Normal equitable tolling principles apply to the statute of limitations for lawsuits under § 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityScalia, joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Securities Exchange Act, 1934

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, 566 U.S. 221 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the limitation period for insider trading claims. [1] [2] The court ruled in an 8-0 unanimous opinion that the limitation period was subject to traditional equitable tolling. Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself from the case.

Contents

Background

In 2007, Vanessa Simmonds, a recent college graduate, simultaneously filed lawsuits against eleven investment banks involving fifty-five initial public offerings accusing them of abuses during the internet firm IPOs from 1999 to 2001 that eventually led to the dot com bust. [3] Amongst her lawyers was her father David Simmonds who had earlier successfully argued a similar case against an internet start-up resulting in the largest judgment and recovery to date under Section 16(b) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs argued that the financial institutions violated Section 16(b) by not disclosing "short-swing" transactions as required under Section 16(a) of the Security Exchange Act, that is trades occurring over a period of less than six months. A federal district court consolidated the nearly identical cases and granted a motion to dismiss, stating that the two year limitation on the period on Section 16(b) had expired. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision, stating that the two-year period was tolled until the "insider" or party benefitting from the profit had disclosed the transaction. [4]

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice Scalia remanded and vacated the lower court's decision, ruling that the limitations period for Section 16(b) was subject to traditional equitable tolling. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Laches (equity)</span> Unreasonable delay by a plaintiff in bringing their claim

In common-law legal systems, laches is a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity. This means that it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy.

A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both criminal law and civil law such as contract law and property law, though often under different names and with varying details.

Neither software nor computer programs are explicitly mentioned in statutory United States patent law. Patent law has changed to address new technologies, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) beginning in the latter part of the 20th century have sought to clarify the boundary between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter for a number of new technologies including computers and software. The first computer software case in the Supreme Court was Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided about a half dozen cases touching on the patent eligibility of software-related inventions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States securities regulation</span> Law and regulations that relate to Securities

Securities regulation in the United States is the field of U.S. law that covers transactions and other dealings with securities. The term is usually understood to include both federal and state-level regulation by governmental regulatory agencies, but sometimes may also encompass listing requirements of exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange and rules of self-regulatory organizations like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a US Supreme Court case involving the one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that if the government unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to dismiss sua sponte the petition on that basis.

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995), was a landmark case about separation of powers in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress may not retroactively require federal courts to reopen final judgments. Writing for the Court, Justice Scalia asserted that such action amounted to an unauthorized encroachment by Congress upon the powers of the judiciary and therefore violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Disgorgement is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "the act of giving up something on demand or by legal compulsion."

TransPerfect Translations is a translation and language services company based in New York City. The company serves clients in many fields, such as film, gaming, law, and healthcare. As of 2012, TransPerfect is "the largest privately owned language services provider, with offices in over 100 cities worldwide" and more than 7,500 employees.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the securities markets were exempt from the scope of antitrust laws.

Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations, such that a lawsuit may potentially be filed even after the statute of limitations has run. Although grounds for tolling the statute of limitations vary by jurisdiction, common grounds include:

TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the discovery rule does not apply to the two-year statute of limitations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Slack Technologies</span> Software company in Canada

Slack Technologies, LLC is an American software company founded in 2009 in Vancouver, British Columbia, known for its proprietary communication platform Slack. Outside its headquarters in San Francisco, California, Slack operates offices in New York City, Denver, Toronto, London, Paris, Tokyo, Dublin, Vancouver, Pune, and Melbourne.

Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "actual damages" under the Privacy Act of 1974 is not clear enough to allow damages for suits for mental and emotional distress. The reasoning behind this is that the United States Congress, when authorizing suit against the government, must be clear in waiving the government's sovereign immunity.

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held 6-3 that the equitable defense of laches is not available to copyright defendants in claims for damages.

Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified subrogation procedures under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The Court held that healthcare plan fiduciaries cannot demand reimbursement for medical benefits from a plan member's general assets if the beneficiary's general assets cannot be traced back to the original payment from the fiduciary. Although some scholars suggested that the court's ruling would have little impact, others suggested the case places "significant restrictions" on the rights of ERISA benefit plan providers.

Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when litigants are entitled to equitable tolling of a statute of limitations. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that the plaintiff in this case was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because they did not demonstrate that "extraordinary circumstances" prevented the timely filing of the lawsuit.

Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term.

Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977. The Court ruled that the statute of limitations begins one year after the alleged FDCPA violation took place, not one year after the violation was discovered by the plaintiff. This ruling affirmed a decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. It is noteworthy for being the first signed opinion released from the 2019 term. It is also noteworthy for resolving a circuit split regarding a major consumer protection law.

AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the ability of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to seek monetary relief for restitution or disgorgement from those that it found in violation of trade practices. The Court ruled unanimously that the FTC had misused its authority granted by the Federal Trade Commission Act under Section 13(b) to obtain monetary relief.

Arellano v. McDonough, 598 U. S. 1 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1), a provision relating to VA disability compensations, is not subject to equitable tolling.

References

  1. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, 566 U.S. 221 (2012).
  2. 1 2 Kaufhold, Steven (March 28, 2012). "Opinion analysis: Occupying the "reasonable middle ground" on tolling of insider trading claims". SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved 31 January 2013.
  3. Grunbaum, Rami (November 4, 2007). "Vanessa vs. the dot-com IPO giants". Seattle Times. Retrieved 31 January 2013.
  4. Simmonds v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 638F.3d1072 ( 9th Cir. 2010).