Insights
Publications

Alert: Supreme Court Limits the Reach of Private Federal Securities Law Actions, Rejecting Claims of Liability Based Upon a “Scheme to Defraud”

1/17/2008 Articles

In an eagerly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court handed down a victory for third parties accused of securities fraud violations under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, holding that § 10(b) does not extend to secondary actors based solely on their participation in a public company's "scheme to defraud."  Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlantic, Inc., -- S. Ct. --, 2008 Westlaw 123801 (Jan. 15, 2008).

The plaintiffs in Stoneridge brought a class action alleging that defendants participated in Charter Communications' scheme to defraud its investors.  Defendants were vendors of set top cable boxes who had agreed to sell their boxes to Charter at inflated prices and then return the excess payments to Charter through the purchase of advertising from Charter.  This allowed Charter to capitalize the purchase of the cable boxes and record the advertising as revenue, defrauding investors into believing Charter had met revenue and cash flow projections.  Plaintiffs alleged the defendant vendors knew of the fraud and even agreed to back date the cable box contracts to make them appear unrelated to the advertising purchases.

The trial court dismissed the action against the vendors, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that defendants had not engaged in a "deceptive act" within the meaning of § 10(b), which extends only to "conduct [that] involves either a misstatement or a failure to disclose by one who has a duty to disclose."  In re Charter Communications, Inc., Securities Litigation, 443 F.3d 987, 990 (2006).  Because defendants had not "affirmatively cause[d] to be made a fraudulent statement or omission," the Eighth Circuit found that defendants were "at most guilty of aiding and abetting" and, under the Supreme Court's Central Bank decision, could not be liable for violating § 10(b).  Id. at 992.

In its 5-3 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court rejected the Eighth Circuit's definition of deceptive acts as overly narrow, but agreed that the third party vendor defendants could not be liable even if they were alleged to have participated in Charter's scheme to defraud because the plaintiffs could not establish reliance on defendants' allegedly deceptive acts.

The Court noted that to establish a private right of action under § 10(b), investors must prove not only that the defendant engaged in a deceptive act in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, but also that the investor relied on the deceptive conduct.  The element of reliance ensures that "‘the requisite causal connection between a defendant's misrepresentation and plaintiff's injury' exists as a predicate for liability." 

In the absence of specific proof of reliance, plaintiffs may generally rely on one of two rebuttable presumptions.  First, reliance is presumed if an investor establishes that there was an omission of a material fact by a party with a duty to disclose that fact.  Second, reliance may also be presumed if a party's misrepresentation is made public, because it is assumed that the investor relied on the information being reflected in the market price of the security.

Here, however, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs could not avail themselves of either presumption.  Even if the vendor defendants' conduct amounted to an omission of material information, they owed no duty to the investors of Charter.  Nor was there any allegation that the vendors' deceptive acts had been communicated to the public, giving rise to a presumption of reliance from an alleged fraud on the market.  The Court thus held that plaintiffs could not establish reliance on the vendors' actions "except in an indirect chain that we find too remote for liability."

The Court went on to expressly reject plaintiffs' argument that, even in the absence of a public misstatement, defendants should be held liable for their participation in the overall fraudulent scheme, a theory previously accepted by the Ninth Circuit in Simpson v. AOL Time Warner Inc., 452 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2006).  If scheme liability were adopted, the Court noted, "it would revive in substance the implied cause of action against all aiders and abettors" that was rejected in Central Bank and undermine Congress' amendment of the Act after Central Bank to extend the SEC enforcement power - but not the private right of action -- to reach such third party actors.

The Supreme Court's decision should come as a welcome relief to third parties such as accountants, business partners and attorneys, who will no longer be subject to liability solely on remote allegations of participation in a fraudulent securities "scheme".

Firm Highlights

News

A Major Victory for hiQ Labs, Ninth Circuit Upholds Its Right to Access Publicly Available LinkedIn Data

In a blockbuster ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed startup hiQ Labs, Inc.’s preliminary injunction (PI) against LinkedIn granted by Judge Edward Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern...

Read More
News

Carly Alameda and Eugene Mar Named to Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under Hotlist 2019

Farella Braun + Martel partners  Carly O. Alameda and Eugene Y. Mar have been named to Benchmark Litigation ’s “ 40 & Under Hotlist” for 2019. The list honors partners 40 or younger who...

Read More
News

Kelly Matayoshi Installed as President of UC Hastings College of the Law Alumni Association Board of Governors

Read More
News

Farella Adds Technology Industry Group Depth

Read More
News

40 Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Named to 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

SAN FRANCISCO, July 8, 2019: Forty Farella Braun + Martel attorneys across practice areas were named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists of top attorneys in Northern California for 2019. Farella attorneys...

Read More
News

Farella Represents Morphe Founders in Sale to General Atlantic

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020

Read More
Publication

Smoke Gets In Your Eyes: Legal Strategies for Smoke-Exposed Grapes

Following on last year’s Northern California firestorm in Napa, Lake, Sonoma, Mendocino, Butte and Solano counties, various North Bay regions have also seen wildfires in 2018. A large wildfire in Mendocino and Lake counties...

Read More
News

Ninth Circuit Upholds Data Miner's Injunction Against LinkedIn

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with data analytics company hiQ Labs, Inc. and upheld an injunction barring LinkedIn from blocking it from accessing information made publicly available by the professional networking site’s users...

Read More
Publication

3 Trends in Criminal Trade Secret Prosecution

Criminal trade secret prosecutions are on the rise nationwide and in the Northern District of California, especially cases relating to alleged theft by Chinese nationals and entities. According to a 2017 report by the...

Read More