October Term 2011 · Docket 10-1261
Does the two-year limit in Section 16(b) bar late insider trading claims?
Credit Suisse argues the two-year limit is a strict deadline. Simmonds argues it allows equitable tolling for late claims.
Verified source milestones
- — 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 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Landau argued the statute looks like a standard limit.
Mr. Tilden argued Congress intended a strict deadline for violators.
Justice Kagan questioned why this case differs from prior rulings.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 28-46 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 28-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 40-32 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 40-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 8-38 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 8-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-44 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 24-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 24-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 48-10 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 48-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 24-36 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 24-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 40-44 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 40-44
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case concerns the timing of lawsuits for insider trading profits. Credit Suisse wants a strict two-year deadline. Simmonds wants courts to extend that deadline in specific cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 40-32 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 40-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 8-38 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 8-38
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 29, 2011.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
What each side wants
Credit Suisse wants a strict two-year deadline for all claims.
Simmonds wants courts to extend deadlines for late claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 40-32 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 40-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 8-38 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 8-38
What each side says
Credit Suisse argues the statute creates a fixed deadline.
Simmonds argues the statute allows equitable tolling.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 40-32 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 40-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 8-38 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 8-38
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked about the nature of the injury.
Justice Ginsburg asked about prior statutory limits in other cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 28-46 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 28-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-44 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 24-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 24-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 48-10 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 48-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 24-36 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 24-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 40-44 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 40-44
Why it matters
This case defines when investors can sue for insider trading profits. It sets the deadline for recovering lost money. It impacts how companies manage shareholder claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 40-32 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 40-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 8-38 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 8-38
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 28-46 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 28-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-44 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 24-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 24-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 50-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 48-10 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 48-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 24-36 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 24-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 40-44 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 40-44
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 40-32 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 40-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 8-38 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 8-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 40-32 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 40-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 8-38 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 8-38
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.