home
about the group
appellate attorneys
briefs
docket reports
oral arguments
news
contact
 
SUPREME COURT DOCKET REPORT
OCTOBER TERM 2011
DECISION ALERT


October Term, 2011

March 26, 2012

Today the Supreme Court issued one decision, described below, of interest to the business community.


Securities Law—Section 16(b)—Statute of Limitations

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, No. 10-1261 (previously discussed in the June 27, 2011 Docket Report).

Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 allows shareholder derivative lawsuits against statutorily defined “insiders” who have profited from “short-swing” transactions. In addition to defining a short-swing transaction as a coupled purchase and sale, or sale and purchase, completed within six months, the statute provides that “no such suit shall be brought more than two years after the date such profit was realized.” 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b). To facilitate the identification of improper trades, Section 16(a) requires insiders to report to the SEC transactions involving relevant securities. Today, in Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, No. 10-1261, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Ninth Circuit’s rule that the two-year statute of limitations for a Section 16(b) suit is tolled until the filing of a Section 16(a) statement.

In 2007, Simmonds sued eleven underwriters under Section 16(b), alleging that they had inflated the prices of certain securities after an IPO and thereby allowed the underwriters to profit in aftermarket sales. The underwriters moved to dismiss the suits as untimely, because the challenged IPOs all occurred between 1998 and 2000 and thus the transactions fell outside the two-year statute of limitations. The Ninth Circuit held that the suits were timely, applying the “Whittaker rule,” see Whittaker v. Whittaker Corp., 639 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1981), according to which the statute of limitations is tolled until a Section 16(a) statement is filed.

While the Court was divided 4-4 on whether the two-year limitations period can ever be tolled (Chief Justice Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), it unanimously held that the Whittaker rule is incorrect. Instead, the Court held that, at most, traditional principles of equitable tolling apply. Under these principles, the Court explained, “when a limitations period is tolled because of fraudulent concealment of facts, the tolling ceases when those facts are, or should have been, discovered by the plaintiff,” slip op. 5, regardless of whether a Section 16(a) statement was filed. The Court criticized the Whittaker rule for creating liability “in perpetuity” for defendants who do not believe they are obligated to file a statement under Section 16(a). Id. at 6. The Court also rejected the Second Circuit’s rule that tolling continues until the plaintiff acquires actual notice of an improper transaction. Id. at 8 n.7. The Court remanded the case to allow the lower courts to apply traditional principles of equitable tolling to the underwriters’ motion to dismiss.

Today’s decision provides additional guidance for corporate insiders regarding potential liability under Section 16(b). In addition, individuals and companies that are closely associated with financial transactions but not governed by Section 16(a) should take note of the Court’s elimination of perpetual liability for those who do not file Section 16(a) statements. The question whether equitable tolling is appropriate for such suits, however, remains an open one.


Mayer Brown's Supreme Court & Appellate practice ordinarily distributes a Docket Report when the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community and a Docket Report-Decision Alert when the Court decides such a case. We hope that you find the Docket Reports and Decision Alerts useful, and welcome feedback on them (which should be addressed to Andrew Tauber, their general editor, at atauber@mayerbrown.com or +1 202 263 3324).

Feel free to forward this message to anyone who you believe might be interested in the Decision Alert.

Please visit us at www.appellate.net

Mayer Brown Supreme Court Docket Reports provide information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. They are not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed.

 
 
© 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved. --  Legal Notices | Attorney Advertising

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.