Willis of Colorado Inc. v. Troice
Linked with:
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12-86 | 5th Cir. | Oct 7, 2013 | Feb 26, 2014 | 7-2 | Breyer | OT 2013 |
Holding: The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1988 does not preclude the plaintiffs' state-law class actions contending that the defendants assisted in perpetrating a Ponzi scheme by falsely representing that uncovered securities that plaintiffs were purchasing were backed by covered securities.
Judgment: Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on February 26, 2014. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: Scope of federal preclusion of state law actions (Allen Ferrell, February 28, 2014)
- Argument analysis: Ghost of Madoff hangs over state securities class actions (Allen Ferrell, October 9, 2013)
- Argument preview: Justices tackle preclusion of state class actions involving securities (Allen Ferrell, October 7, 2013)
- Petitions of the day (Ben Cheng, September 15, 2012)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 07/18/2012 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 22, 2012) |
| 08/16/2012 | Brief of respondents James Roland, et al., and Leah Farr, et al. in opposition filed. |
| 08/20/2012 | Brief of respondents Samuel Troice, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED. |
| 08/22/2012 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar. |
| 08/22/2012 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP. VIDED. |
| 09/04/2012 | Reply of petitioners Willis of Colorado Incorporated, et al. filed. |
| 09/05/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012. |
| 10/01/2012 | The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. |
| 12/14/2012 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED. |
| 12/24/2012 | Supplemental brief of respondents Samuel Troice, et al. filed. VIDED. |
| 12/26/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 11, 2013. |
| 12/26/2012 | Supplemental brief of petitioners Willis of Colorado Incorporated, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 12/26/2012 | Supplemental brief of respondents James Roland, et al., and Leah Farr, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/14/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 18, 2013. |
| 01/18/2013 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar GRANTED. |
| 01/18/2013 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP GRANTED. |
| 01/18/2013 | Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 12-79 is granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 12-88 is granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED. |
| 02/07/2013 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' briefs on the merits is extended to and including May 3, 2013. VIDED. |
| 02/27/2013 | The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including July 18, 2013. VIDED |
| 04/09/2013 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners Willis of Colorado, et al. VIDED. |
| 04/09/2013 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for all respondents. VIDED. |
| 05/03/2013 | Joint appendix filed. (2 Volumes) VIDED. (Statement of costs filed) |
| 05/03/2013 | Brief of petitioners Willis of Colorado Incorporated, et al. filed. |
| 05/10/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED. |
| 05/10/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP filed. VIDED. |
| 05/10/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Causeway Capital Management LLC filed. |
| 05/10/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association filed. VIDED. |
| 05/10/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar filed. VIDED. |
| 06/12/2013 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. VIDED. |
| 07/18/2013 | Brief of respondents Samuel Troice, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
| 07/22/2013 | CIRCULATED. VIDED. |
| 07/23/2013 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, October 7, 2013. VIDED |
| 07/24/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Sixteen Law Professors filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
| 07/25/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, et al. filed. (Reprinted) VIDED. (Distributed) |
| 07/25/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
| 07/25/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Occupy the SEC filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
| 08/02/2013 | Record from U.S.C.A. for 5th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. |
| 08/02/2013 | Record from U.S.D.C. for Northern District of Texas is electronic and located on PACER. |
| 08/19/2013 | Reply of petitioners Willis of Colorado Incorporated, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 08/30/2013 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
| 10/07/2013 | Argued. For petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.; and Elaine J. Goldenberg, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Thomas C. Goldstein, Bethesda, Md. VIDED. |
| 02/26/2014 | Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. |
| 03/31/2014 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the respondents in this case.
Issue: Whether a covered state law class action complaint that unquestionably alleges “a” misrepresentation “in connection with” the purchase or sale of a security covered by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act nonetheless can escape the application of SLUSA by including other allegations that are farther removed from a covered securities transaction.