Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued October 9, 2007
Decided January 15, 2008
Full case nameStoneridge Investment Partners, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., et al.
Docket no.06-43
Citations552 U.S. 148 (more)
128 S. Ct. 761; 169 L. Ed. 2d 627; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 1091; 76 U.S.L.W. 4039; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 94,556; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 46
Case history
PriorCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Holding
The private right of action under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 does not extend to aiders and abettors. Because the conduct of a secondary actor must therefore satisfy each of the elements for §10(b) liability, the plaintiff must prove reliance upon a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
DissentStevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg
Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.

Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, 552 U.S. 148 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court pertaining to the scope of liability of secondary actors, such as lawyers and accountants, for securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that "aiders and abettors" of fraud cannot be held secondarily liable under the private right of action authorized by §10(b) of the Exchange Act. Such defendants can only be held liable if their own conduct satisfies each of the elements for §10(b) liability. Therefore, the plaintiff must prove reliance, in making a decision to acquire or hold a security, upon a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant.

Stoneridge was recognized by The New York Times as the “most important securities fraud case in years,”[1] and also commented by Wall Street Journal,[2] Forbes,[3] and Business Week.[4]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Greenhouse, Linda (2008-01-15). "Supreme Court Restricts Securities Lawsuits". New York Times.
  2. ^ Bravin, Jess; Scannel, Kara (2008-01-16). "Top Court Limits Shareholder Fraud Suits". Wall Street Journal.
  3. ^ Wingfield, Brian (2008-01-15). "Stoneridge And The Court". Forbes.
  4. ^ McCollam, Douglas (2008-01-15). "StoneRidge Ruling Shields Third-Party Advisers". BusinessWeek.

Further reading[edit]