This week, the Supreme Court held that knowing distributors of another’s false statements still could be primarily liable under parts of Rule 10b-5, even though they didn’t “make” the statements under prior precedent. The Lorenzo decision seems clear and common-sense on its face, but represents a battle in the weeds of an administrative case that’s likely to have significant ramifications over who private civil litigants can sue under the Securities Laws.
Rule 10b-5 prohibits any person from:
- "employ[ing] any device, scheme or artifice to defraud" [Scheme]
- "mak[ing ...
A unanimous Supreme Court today held that "covered class actions" over exchange-traded securities are not removable from state courts under SLUSA when they assert only '33 Act claims.
The Court held the removal provisions of the Act are in aid of its state-law claim bar (removed to ensure dismissal), and do not otherwise affect the long-standing grant of concurrent jurisdiction for '33 Act claims.
"Under our reading of SLUSA, all covered securities class actions must proceed under federal law; most (i.e., those alleging 1934 Act claims) must proceed in federal court; some (i.e ...