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: Mazulmaran Vulkree
Country: Turkey
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 24 November 2013
Pages: 207
PDF File Size: 12.26 Mb
ePub File Size: 5.17 Mb
ISBN: 345-6-64529-122-4
Downloads: 52612
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vuramar

The label attached to the Whittaker rule does not matter. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.

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. Recent Decisions United States v. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Citation. United States District Court, W.

Supreme Court22 Jan Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site.

See Brief for RespondentVanessa Simmonds at Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change. Is foreclosure debt collection? Credit Suisse argues that, even if the Court finds that Section 16 b can be tolled, Simmonds’s action is still untimely. The Securities Act was intended to protect the market and investors against insider trading.


Credit Suisse v. Simmonds – Credit Suisse v. Simmonds – SIFMA

And it is especially at odds with a provision that imposes strict liability on putative insiders, see Gollust, U. It is so ordered. Simmnds re Facebook, Inc. Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioners’ reply. Supreme Court20 Jun The Supreme Court’s decision will affect the disclosure policies of investment banks and the time period during which directors can be held liable for short-swing purchases and sales. Supreme Court08 Jan Credit Suisse argues that the ssimmonds limit set forth in Section 16 b is a period of repose and, as such, cannot be tolled.

Credit Suisse v. Simmonds

Judge Milan Smith, Jr. See Brief of the Chamber of Commerce at 7. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Wells Suise Bank, NA. The limitations provision does not say so.

Conclusion 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.

Credit Suisse Securities v. See Brief for Petitioner at 24— Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet. We granted certiorari, U.

Robbins and Bowles v. Had Congress intended the possibility of such endless tolling, it would have said so.


Supreme Court27 Apr Warren Washington State Department of Licensing v. 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.

Kwai Fun Wong v. Simmonds Visual Similar Judgments. Certiorari-stage documents Opinion below 9th Cir. PerryTown of Greece v. The Chamber of Commerce insists that, when enacting Section 16, Congress prioritized a policy of repose over protecting investors from undiscovered violations.

No tolling is certainly an easily administrable bright-line rule. Brief for Respondent Protecting Against Insider Trading The United States warns that, if the time limitation is not tolledviolators of Section 16 a would profit from their wrongs: II Petitioners maintain that these suits were properly dismissed because they were filed more than two years after the alleged profits were realized. Simmonds’ lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed all of her complaints.

Steager Department of Commerce v. As that court itself recognized, this actual-notice rule departs from usual equitable-tolling principles.