On January 25, the American Supreme Court delivered its decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v Scientific-Atlanta Inc. et al., described by the UK's Financial Times as "the most important securities case in more than a decade". The issues and the finding of the majority (5 to 3) of the Court are well described in Justice Kennedy's opening remarks:
"We consider the reach of the private right of action the Court has found implied in §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b–5, 17 CFR §240.10b–5 (2007). In this suit investors alleged losses after purchasing common stock. They sought to impose liability on entities who, acting both as customers and suppliers, agreed to arrangements that allowed the investors’ company to mislead its auditor and issue a misleading financial statement affecting the stock price. We conclude the implied right of action does not reach the customer/supplier companies because the investors did not rely upon their statements or representations. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."
The decision is available here.
For further discussion, click here and here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cool Followers
Popular entries
-
Incident: Sick Kids physician loses portable hard-drive with unencrypted personal health informationA physician from Sick Kids hospital who decided to travel with a portable hard-drive containing unencrypted health information on 3,300 pat...
-
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta released a very interesting order today, considering whether the right to freedom of exp...
-
INSOL Europe recently published a report titled Harmonisation of Insolvency Law at EU Law Level : see here ( pdf ). The report outlines di...
-
Apparently the American government is about to implement its latest version of the no-fly list, without data mining using commercial sources...
-
If all those who say they should be in prison are willing to pay for that through their chequebooks rather than mine and many other taxpayer...
-
Section 309 of the California Corporations Code provides that a director must act in good faith, in the manner in which he/she believes to...
-
A few matters on the subject of tenancy deposit protection which I have been meaning to comment on for a while. The August issue of Legal Ac...
-
On June 23, Australia's Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services published a report titled Better sharehold...
-
Several months ago the Court of Appeal gave judgment in Moore Stephens (a firm) v Stone & Rolls Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 644 and it would ap...
-
"Police tried to calm the teen, but Holyfield became combative, according to the statement. Officers fired the stun gun at him after he...
Comments
Post a comment on: US Supreme Court rules on third party liability towards company investors