October Term 2013 · Docket 12-79

Does a private fraud suit require a direct link to a covered securities transaction?

Investors sue lawyers for aiding a Ponzi scheme. The lawyers argue the fraud did not directly involve buying or selling securities.

Official caption
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Paul Clement argues the fraud included material misrepresentations about covered securities transactions.

    Clement warns against letting materiality or causation slip into the connection requirement.

    Ms. Goldenberg agrees with a narrow formulation of the legal standard.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of federal securities fraud laws. It asks whether a private plaintiff must prove a direct link between the fraud and a specific securities transaction.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 7, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The investors want the court to allow their fraud claims to proceed.

The lawyers want the court to dismiss the investors' fraud claims.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The investors argue the lawyers' fraud directly affected the market for covered securities.

The lawyers argue the fraud did not involve a direct transaction in covered securities.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asks if listing fake stocks on a loan application violates securities law.

Justice Kagan asks how a misrepresentation affects a potential purchaser or seller in the market.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary of federal securities fraud liability. It determines whether private plaintiffs can sue for fraud without proving a direct securities transaction. The outcome shapes the scope of investor protections in financial markets.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON