Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows State Class Actions to Proceed Against Security Fraud 'Ponzi Scheme'


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that a federal law which "forbids the bringing of large securities class actions based upon violations of state law" does not preclude the bringing of state class action suits against associates of billionaire financier Allen Stanford, who is currently serving a 110-year federal prison sentence for securities fraud.

At issue in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice is whether the the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, which says plaintiffs may not bring a class action suit "based upon the statutory or common law of any State" when those plaintiffs allege "a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security," precludes the state class actions filed in response to what has been described as Standford's securities fraud "Ponzi scheme."

Writing for a 7-2 majority, Justice Stephen Breyer ruled today that federal law does not bar the state suits from proceeding. "The basic consequence of our holding," Breyer wrote, "is that, without limiting the Federal Government's prosecution power in any significant way, it will permit victims of this (and similar) frauds to recover damages under state law."

Writing in dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, charged the majority with weakening federal protections for future investors victimized by securities fraud. "Today's decision, to a serious degree, narrows essential protection for our national securities markets, protection vital for their strength and integrity," Kennedy wrote. "The result will be a lessened confidence in the market, a force for instability that should otherwise be countered by the proper interpretation of federal securities laws and regulations."

At a glance, today's majority features an unusual ideological line-up, with conservatives such as Justice Clarence Thomas joining the decision of liberal Justice Stephen Breyer. But in fact Thomas has a well-established record of siding with the Court's liberal bloc in what might be termed "regulatory federalism" cases. In 2009, for instance, Thomas sided with Justice John Paul Stevens' 6-3 ruling in Wyeth v. Levine, which held that federal law did not preclude a state lawsuit filed against a pharmaceutical company. Two years later, in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Thomas filed a concurrence explaining why the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act should not trump a more restrictive California seat belt regulation. His vote in that case prompted one liberal legal advocate to describe Thomas as a "surprising ally for progressives."

Today's ruling in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice is available here.

NEXT: SCOTUS Rules Against Anti-War Protester Removed from 'Protest Area' By Military

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thomas is a federalist. I don’t know why this would be surprising.

    1. Thomas is a federalist when it pleases him to be so. A full on federalist would be arguing against any law that allows the federal government to do anything beyond a narrow, restrictive reading of Article I, section 8.

      A full on federalist would have filed a concurring opinion saying that federal law doesn’t trump state law in this instance because the federal law is an unconstitutional attempt to assume powers not given the feds in A 1 S 8.

  2. It seems to me that the plain language of the statute should make this a no-brainer – the law specifically applies to ‘covered securities’ and the securities in question were not covered securities. By claiming that the ruling (that non-covered securities are non-covered securities) will threaten protection of securities markets, Kennedy seems to be arguing that the Supremes should make their ruling based on what the law should have said rather than what it actually says. Given the fact that he’s claiming the ruling leads to a lack of confidence in the markets, he might want to look at the issue of a lack of confidence in the rule of law when some people are simply allowed to say the law means something entirely different than what the law says.

  3. Since Kennedy is willing to include securities not covered under the law, perhaps he will allow law suits against our FICA debacle further stretching the law to cover our “security “. So many Americans consider their contribution to this “fund” their personal account and retirement security in terms of money as a secure future. Hmmm?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.