October Term 2009 · Docket 08-905

When does the two-year clock start for securities fraud claims?

the sides that brought the case argue the clock starts when a plaintiff actually learns of the fraud. the opposing sides argue it starts when a plaintiff should have learned.

Official caption: Merck & Co. v. Reynolds
Latest argument session: 2009-11-30
Latest official Court activity: 2009-11-30
Latest verified event: Argued
Sources analyzed through: Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

Argument 1 · 2009-11-30

What happened at the argument
Mr. Stewart argued the statute uses the word discovery without specifying actual or constructive knowledge.
Mr. Frederick argued Congress intended the word discovery to have its normal and well-established meaning.
Mr. Shanmugam argued the statute incorporates the equitable principle that the period begins upon discovery of facts.
Justice Roberts asked what phrase describes when inquiry notice culminates in finding out about scienter.

Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 5-25 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 5-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 25-15 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 25-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-35

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the meaning of the word discovery in a federal statute. The term controls when a two-year deadline begins for private securities fraud suits. The parties disagree on whether the term means actual knowledge or constructive knowledge.