CalPERS v. ANZ Securities, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
137 S. Ct. 2042, 198 L. Ed. 2d 584 (2017)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
California Public Employees’ Retirement Systems (CalPERS) (plaintiff) purchased securities through public offerings made by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Lehman). Within three years of the public offerings, a putative class-action suit was filed against various financial firms, including ANZ Securities, Inc. (ANZ) (defendants), under § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all investors who purchased securities through Lehman’s public offerings. The putative class action claimed that the registration statements filed for the securities issued in the public offerings contained false statements or omitted material information. CalPERS, having purchased the securities identified in the allegedly false registration statements, was a member of the putative class but opted out of the class and was not one of the named plaintiffs in the class action. CalPERS filed a separate lawsuit on its behalf, alleging the same securities-law violations asserted in the class action. CalPERS filed the separate lawsuit more than three years after the public offers that gave rise to the claimed securities-law violations. ANZ motioned to dismiss on the grounds that CalPERS’s lawsuit was time-barred. CalPERS opposed the motion, arguing that the three-year limitations period mandated by § 13 of the Securities Act of 1933 was tolled during the pendency of the timely filed class action. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision. CalPERS appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.