who didn't vote?

This is going to kill securities litigation. This protects all the big pocketed defendants most plaintiffs will want to attack (banks, accountants, etc).

Here's to hoping plaintiff's come up with a clever way around this ...

FIRST to be laid off... I thought passively aiding and abetting criminal conduct was a crime, at least it was when I went to law school and prepared for the bar exam. Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot we are dealing with Roberts and Alito and they have padded their pocket books with money from defending these passive scumbags for years. Oh well, maybe it's time to go back to school and become a dentist like my mother always wanted.

11:12: Alito didn't pad his pockets with anything - he was a government lawyer for almost his entire career.

Roberts was at Hogan & Hartson, so maybe your criticism is more valid wrt him.

11:12: Not sure when you went to law school or took the bar exam, but aiding and abetting has not been a securities fraud claim since the S.Ct.'s decision in Central Bank in 1994.

Rather than trying to take misdirected political shots against some of the justices, why don't you get off the computer and go back to your slip-and-fall cases, as you clearly don't handle securities litigation.

Since when are accountants and lawyers (and banks) the primary targets of securities litigation? This decision simply forecloses a novel and potentially dangerous expansion of securities lit - the area will otherwise continue to thrive.

I don't think the area of securities litigation is thriving. This isn't the first decision handed down by the Court that makes it harder to bring securities cases. There was an opinion from last Term about pleading standards under the PSLRA that has also cut down on litigation in this area.

Bad mojo for firms that represent banks and accountants in securities litigation.

11:30: My firm bills millions to banks and accounting firms each year to defend against securities fraud claims, even if they aren't the "primary targets."

Lat, error in paragraph one in the blue box: "partnes".

Banks may not be primary violators but they are almost always the deepest pockets in securities cases that come out of big bankruptcies.

11:12 -- You might want to actually read the opinion before you spout off with the specious personal attacks. The criminal penalties and SEC civil enforcement still apply. I just gave it a quick skim, but I’m pretty sure the opinion just says that a 10b-5 claim can’t be used to reach those who “aide and abet” securities violations (i.e., to line the pockets of Weiss and Lerach . . . once they get out of jail). Don’t like it? Get Congress to revise the statute.

"who didn't vote?"

Justice Breyer recused himself because he owns stock in one of the companies.

Wow. The Supreme Court held to established precedent - stop the press!

And get outta town, securities fraud cases are hardly complex or difficult to prove up - the theories are quite simple. And you already have a free bus ticket to causation land - "fraud on the market / reliance is presumed" (I think that is Affiliated Ute off the top of my head).

Discovery is a chingadero but welcome to civil litigation against firms with billable hour fever.

SCOTUS recusals are for SISSIES-- Scalia

Lat's coverage is AWFUL... he should just post news links, like Drudge, without his flamboyant and retarded commentary.

Above the Law = A Gay Stoner's View on Legal News and gossip

This decision, which, as someone else correctly mentioned, only addresses a novel and narrow theory of liability, won't change anything. As long as (a) unfortunate things happen to people for any reason whatsoever, and (b) plaintiff's lawyers continue to look for any way possible to sue entities with deep pockets, no matter how dubiously, then (c) big firms defending those entities will always do well.

There is always some new "crisis" that leads to new attempts to sue deep-pocketed parties. Like, say, the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting credit crunch (and all the corporate deals going south from that). That will keep law firms sitting pretty for the next, oh, seven to ten years.

Co-sign 11:42, and I gave it much more than a quick skim. The Court didn't "cut back" on anything. The plaintiffs were seeking to bring in third parties under a theory of liability rejected by the Supreme Court in 1994. Everyone familiar with this case knew that it was going to be 5-3 months ago.

The three who dissented also dissented from Central Bank, and no matter how they try to spin it, their dissent now speaks of gross infidelity to the principle of stare decisis. But I guess it's okay to show no respect for precedent, unless it's precedent from the Warren Court.

I think Kennedy and the conservative justices want to characterize the decision as immunizing aiding and abetting from liability under 10b-5. But Stevens' dissent makes clear that the majority does more than exempt aiding and abetting. The majority allows secondary actors to commit actual violations of 10b-5, violations that are relied on by purchasers of securities, and to escape liability. And it's all because these justices are in bed with big business and will only allow a cause of action if Congress and the statute hit them over the head with it. But at least this decision will help reduce frivolous lawsuits and possibly take money away from biglaw defense firms and into business, where it belongs.

"The majority allows secondary actors to commit actual violations of 10b-5, violations that are relied on by purchasers of securities, and to escape liability."

Have you read either (1) the decision, or (2) 10b-5?

I didn't think so.

The legal analyis on this board leads me to one conclusion:

All comments are posted by people who failed the July bar and are studying for Feb re-take.

Hit the books, you are border-line retarded!

LOL @ sleazy plaintiff-representing securities litigators getting Tellabs/Stoneridgepwned by the Roberts Court!

1230: that is hilarious (and true for me!)

Co-sign 12:34.

Pwned!!!!

12:14 - Some of us like Lat's commentary. But if you're just looking for a collection of links, without commentary, go to How Appealing.

12:22 is right. This wasn't a particularly difficult case. The only surprising thing is how the three justices in the minority could get it wrong.

On a related topic, the opinion correctly points out that while there is no private right of action for aiding and abetting claims, the SEC has the authority to bring enforcement actions on an aiding and abetting theory. The SEC has for several years been bringing aiding and abetting cases against customers and suppliers of public companies using the same basic theory the plaintiff's used in this case.

There is language in the Stoneridge opinion that the SEC should consider before bringing any more of these cases. "Were the implied cause of action to be extended to the practices described here, however, there would be a risk that the federal power would be used to invite litigation beyond the immediate sphere of securities litigation and in areas already governed by functioning and effective state-law guarantees." This would seem to apply as much to SEC enforcement actions as private litigation. Perhaps the enforcement division should reconsider its activist approach in these cases.

Regarding the law - some would also argue that there was a countersurge to the removal of the aiding & abetting cause of action in Central Bank because some courts are willing to give a much more expansive definition to what constitutes a primary violation of the securities laws. This decision probably has implications for this line of jurisprudence

Doesn't Mayer Brown (the appelate's lawyers) have a conflict in this case? Aren't they themselves being sued for aiding and abetting securities fraud (eg Refco)? Where does this case lave them?