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.

Author: Vudolkree Groshura
Country: Uganda
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 9 November 2007
Pages: 124
PDF File Size: 15.1 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.52 Mb
ISBN: 816-7-92817-157-5
Downloads: 88531
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Dumuro

Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds

Simmonds further argues that, because shareholders can only learn of private transactions through Section 16 a disclosures, it would defeat the purpose of the statute if the Section 16 b time limit were not tied to such disclosures.

Albrecht Mission Product Holdings Inc. Full Calendar Submit Event. Nov 29, Tr.

Supreme Court27 Jun Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioners’ reply. Is foreclosure debt collection? Credit Suisse argues that a plaintiff cannot benefit from tolling if the plaintiff knew or should have known the facts underlying the complaint, and points out that Simmonds knew about the facts giving rise to her lawsuit five years before she filed the lawsuit.

Bethune-Hill Virginia Uranium, Inc.

Symposium before the oral argument in The American Legion v. Simmonds maintains that failing to apply the Whittaker rule would obstruct Congress’s objective of curbing short-swing speculation by corporate insiders. Noting that Section 16 a includes a disclosure requirement in SEC filings for ownership and dimmonds activities, Simmonds contends that the time limit in Section 16 b can only be properly interpreted within the context of disclosure.

Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in denying the officers qualified immunity by considering clearly established law at too zimmonds a level of generality rather than giving particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case; 2 whether the lower court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity by relying on a single decision, published after the event in question, to support its conclusion that qualified immunity is not available; and 3 whether the lower court erred in failing or refusing to decide whether the subject arrest was simmonda probable cause or subject to qualified immunity.


The latter requires insiders to disclose any changes to their ownership interests on a document known as a Form 4, specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. No Case or Topic can crfdit added. And assuming some form of tolling does apply, it is preferable to suise that form which Congress was certainly aware of, as opposed to the rule the Ninth Circuit has fashioned.

Credit Suisse v. Simmonds

Securities and Exchange Commission: You have reach your max limit. No tolling is certainly an easily administrable bright-line rule. It is well established, moreover, that 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.

Whether the two-year time limit for bringing an action under Section 16 b of the Securities Exchange Act of15 U. Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc.

Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds – SCOTUSblog

Vacated and remanded, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on March 26, Go to Petitioners maintain that these suits were properly dismissed because they were filed more than two years after the alleged profits were realized. American Humanist Association 1 Whether a year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; 2 whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v.

Simmonds contends that Credit Suisse is liable under Section 16 b for profiting from short-swing transactions in the IPOs, and under Section 16 a for failing to report the profits resulting from those transactions.


Indiana United States v. Certiorari-stage documents Opinion below 9th Cir. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Haymond United States v.

Scott Fischer, Veronika M. Statute of Limitations Securities and Exchange Commission: United States District Court, S. 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. As that court itself recognized, this actual-notice rule departs from usual equitable-tolling principles. Utah,Simmonds argues that the Whittaker rule isbest understood as simonds legal—rather than equitable—tolling.

Dep’t of Veteran Affairs. Simmonds argues that the word “such” in the time limitation language of Section 16 b refers to profits made by the owners, directors, and officers who are required to disclose under Section 16 a.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds – Wikipedia

United States District Court, E. In re Facebook, Inc. 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.

United States, ex rel. See Lampf, supra, atn. Simmonds argues that statutes of repose limit the duration of a given right, whereas statutes of limitations specifically limit the ability to bring a lawsuit.

See Credit Suisse Sec. Duisse United States v.