Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate Governance Blogs -> The Race to the Bottom
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Corporate Governance
: The Race to the BottomThe Supreme Court and the Mission to Restrict Investor Protection: Merck v. Reynolds (Part 9: An Initial Conclusion)
By J. Robert Brown
We are discussing the decision by the Supreme Court to grant cert in Merck v. Reynolds to address the statute of limitations under Rule 10b-5.
The case will now go before the US Supreme Court. We will do our best to follow it, acquiring the relevant briefs. It will likely generate some interest from amicus briefs and, given the Government's brief in Betz (suggesting that the Court take this case, see footnote 6), may even result in an opinion from the Justice Department and perhaps the SEC.
Were this a case unladen with ideological concern, it would be an interesting matter, at least for law professors who teach both securities and administrative law. The case requires an analysis of federal common law and an examination of legislative history and statutory language. It uses colorful meteorological terminology.
All of that said, the outcome would be relatively clear. As we have been discussing, the concept of inquiry notice (storm warnings) imposed on plaintiffs in cases brought under Rule 10b-5 is an incorrect reading of the statute. The statute of limitations in 28 USC §1658 begins to run after "discovery of the facts constituting the violation."
Plaintiffs are allowed to wait for the facts to emerge and can file suit within a two year period after they do. They are not required to investigate. Moreover, plaintiffs can wait for some evidence of wrongdoing. In cases such as this, where wrongdoing depends almost exclusively on the defendant's beliefs, plaintiffs can wait until evidence surfaces suggesting a false belief. Under that standard, the majority opinion in the Third Circuit ought to be upheld (although perhaps rewritten to get rid of the concept of inquiry notice).
Alas, after Stoneridge, there is a risk that the case will not be treated in such an academic fashion. To the extent the philosophy in Stoneridge guides the analysis, the Court will be less concerned about statutory language and more concerned with any perceived extension of the reach of Rule 10b-5.
The cert petition and other primary materials can be found on the DU Corporate Governance web site.
Full post as published by The Race to the Bottom on June 25, 2009 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
E2 Treaty Investor Visa Questions
E2 Visa Assistance
Vioxx Lawsuits
Vioxx personal injury suits are a seroius concern for Merck and patietns
Rutland School District
Double pay offered as part of class action wage dispute settlement, pending court approval.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Facing Potential Class Action
Investor Fraud
Company president and director Gregory William Rivers to pay $10,000 shareholder fraud settlement.
Joint Venture
Gallaher Group agrees to pay Reynolds American $387 million contract dispute settlement.
Gardasil
Merck's HPV Vaccine Linked to Paralysis
Merck, Schering
Settle Vytorin Zetia Class Action

Court to rule on Vioxx fraud case
SEC Creates an Investor Advisory Committee
NJ Supreme Court decides Sinclair v. Merck
Supreme Court Denies RJ Reynolds Petition for Review in Star Scientific Patent Infringement Lawsuit
Supreme Court to hear Vioxx fraud case
Supreme Court Picks up Merck Appeal in Vioxx Suit









