This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC, stoneridge Investment Partners challenges the respondents’ conduct as a violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and the SEC’s Rule 10b‑5, which prohibit deceptive devices in securities transactions.
Background and question before the Court
According to Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC, stoneridge argues that the respondents’ alleged conduct falls within the scope of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b‑5 as a deceptive device.
The Court also considered whether liability can extend to “aiders and abettors” of securities fraud.
What each side argues
Petitioner – Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC
According to Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC, stoneridge argues that the respondents’ conduct is squarely covered by Section 10(b) and Rule 10b‑5, which prohibit any deceptive device in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.
Respondents – Scientific‑Atlanta, Inc.
Respondents contend that the petition seeks to expand an implied cause of action by diluting traditional requirements such as the reliance requirement and by eroding precedent set in the Central Bank case.
According to Mr. Shapiro, mr. Shapiro noted that Section 18(a) provides liability for causing another person to make a false statement in a financial statement, a provision not invoked in the petition.
Amicus – United States (Thomas G. Hungar)
According to Mr. Hungar, amicus counsel supported the respondents’ position.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 11:00 a.m.
Justice Scalia asked whether the respondents intended or knowingly used the deceptive device.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter questioned whether the deception was directed at the petitioner.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia probed the distinction between the liability the petition proposes and traditional aider‑abettor liability.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg referenced aiders and abettors in the discussion.
Justice Kennedy asked whether there is a third classification between aider and abettor in tort law.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts inquired how the parties read Section 20(e) in connection with Sections 9 and 18 of the Exchange Act, which provide remedies and private rights of action against multiple parties.
According to Respondents, mr. Shapiro argued that the petition would expand an implied cause of action and erode the Central Bank precedent.
According to Mr. Shapiro, mr. Shapiro noted that Section 18(a) imposes liability for causing another person to make a false statement in a financial statement.
- [1] a6b60b554a74aeabf3ba-r1-1282ef6e108be025.pdf, p. 1
- [2] a6b60b554a74aeabf3ba-r1-1282ef6e108be025.pdf, p. 9
- [3] a6b60b554a74aeabf3ba-r1-1282ef6e108be025.pdf, p. 21
- [4] a6b60b554a74aeabf3ba-r1-1282ef6e108be025.pdf, p. 21
- [5] a6b60b554a74aeabf3ba-r1-1282ef6e108be025.pdf, p. 41
- [6] a6b60b554a74aeabf3ba-r1-1282ef6e108be025.pdf, p. 42
- [7] a6b60b554a74aeabf3ba-r1-1282ef6e108be025.pdf, p. 60
- [8] a6b60b554a74aeabf3ba-r1-1282ef6e108be025.pdf, p. 26
- [9] a6b60b554a74aeabf3ba-r1-1282ef6e108be025.pdf, p. 42
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- a6b60b554a74aeabf3ba-r1-1282ef6e108be025.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.