Vanessa Simmonds alleged in 54 separate complaints that several investment banks shared in the profits of customers who received IPO. Case opinion for US Supreme Court CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC ET AL. v. SIMMONDS. Read the Court’s full decision on. Vanessa Simmonds brought suit under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of in order to recoup profits realized by Credit Suisse and other.
|Published (Last):||25 April 2004|
|PDF File Size:||20.78 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.81 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Section 16 itself quite clearly does not extend the period in that manner. And it is especially at odds with a provision that imposes strict liability on putative insiders, see Gollust, Crevit. The Ninth Circuit reversed.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds (10-1261)
United States District Court, W. Full Calendar Submit Event.
Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Nov 29, Tr.
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. Eig Energy Fund Xiv, L. The lower courts should consider in the first instance how usual equitable tolling rules apply in this case.
This subsection shall not be construed to cover any transaction where such beneficial owner was not such both at the time of the purchase and sale, or the sale and purchase, of the security or security-based swap agreement as defined in section B of the Gramm—Leach—Bliley Act involved, or any transaction or transactions which the [Securities and Exchange] Commission by rules and regulations may exempt as not comprehended within the purpose of this subsection.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Credit Suisse points to the language, structure, and legislative history of the statute to suggest that Section 16 b should be read as a stand-alone section that refers only to the defendant’s conduct when setting its time limit. Views Read Edit View history.
Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds
Simmonds contends that she could not have known of the facts giving rise to her claim because Credit Suisse did not file a Section 16 a disclosure report and the information was only known to insiders. As that court itself recognized, this actual-notice rule departs from usual equitable-tolling principles.
United States Sturgeon v. Ex’r of the Estate of Arnold. Fairness to Plaintiffs The United States advocates that the availability of a cause of action should not begin to expire until the plaintiff has had an actual chance to discover a wrong.
See Brief of Amicus Curiae U. See In re Initial Pub. Go to Section 16 b provides in full: Allowing tolling to continue beyond that point would be inequitable and inconsistent with the general purpose of statutes of limitations: Where it is feasible, a syllabus headnote will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
Bethune-Hill Virginia Uranium, Inc.
We granted certiorari, U. Further, Credit Suisse argues that, when considering Section16 b in the structural context of the larger statute, it is clear that no mechanism for extension exists. See Brief for RespondentVanessa Simmonds at 17— Securities Exchange Act of United States, U.
The United States warns that, if the time limitation is not tolledviolators of Section 16 a would profit from their wrongs: Simmonds maintains that failing to apply the Whittaker rule would obstruct Congress’s objective of curbing short-swing speculation by corporate insiders.
Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Sun River Energy, Inc.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds – Wikipedia
The Chamber of Commerce explains ssimmonds awards from the lawsuit go to simmonde corporation, not the plaintiff, and concludes that plaintiffs do not have an interest in bringing suit. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether Section 16 b of the Securities Exchange Act of can be tolled in order to extend the period of time in which a plaintiff can bring suit to recoup profits made by defendants in the course of short-swing trading.
On the other hand, the Chamber of Commerce insists that tolling is unwarranted because Congress intended to tie the limitations period to the date the profits were realized, not the date of the harm to the plaintiff.
In a representative complaint, she alleged that the underwriters and the issuers’ insiders employed various mechanisms to inflate the aftermarket price of the stock wimmonds a level above the IPO price, allowing them to profit from the aftermarket sale. As that court itself recognized, this actual-notice rule departs from usual equitable-tolling principles. Opinion Announcement – March 26,