More On Stoneridge, Scheme Liability And Shareholder Suits

Author:
Updated:
Original:

We’ve allowed our concern over the possible fate of shareholder proxy access rules to take a back seat over the last couple of days to our following the Stoneridge case. You know, the one about whether shareholders of one company can bring a securities law fraud case against another company on the theory of"scheme liability.” Today is no different.
So just in case your obsessions track ours, we’ll speed things up for you with a host of links to some of the relevant commentary.
•Jonathan Alder on the Volokh conspiracy explains why everyone is paying attention to this little case about cable set-top boxes. “A decision for the petitioners (the plaintiff shareholders) could ease the way for lawsuits against bankers, accountants, and perhaps even lawyers who provide services to firms that misstate their earnings or otherwise defraud their investors,” he writes.
•“As the Court concluded an hourlong hearing in a vitally important securities case, there seemed hardly a chance — even a remote one — that federal law against stock fraud would be read to give investors a significant new tool to go after stock fraud themselves,” the Scotus blog writes.
•Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge has no fewer than four posts on Stoneridge up and seems to be generating new ones every time we look. Just go to his main business associations page and start reading.
•Larry Ribstein thinks this might not be a total victory for the defendants and those worried about corporate liability to a new type of shareholder suit. He’s betting the Supreme Court will “deny liability in this case but throw some bone to the plaintiffs to resurrect some form of aiding and abetting liability in some future case with incredibly strong allegations.”
• If you’re still with us at this point, then you’ll probably want to read the pdf transcript of the oral arguments. Because you’re a shareholder rights or corporate governance nerd. (Smile when you call yourself that.)

Related