Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantstatutepleamotionclass actionstatute of limitationscivil procedure
plaintiffdefendantstatutemotionbankruptcystatute of limitations

Related Cases

In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, 292 F.Supp.3d 14, 2017-2 Trade Cases P 80,192, 99 Fed.R.Serv.3d 223
View Case »
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, 571 U.S. 377, 134 S.Ct. 1058, 188 L.Ed.2d 88, Blue Sky L. Rep. P 75,066, 82 USLW 4127, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,832, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1986, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2332, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 564
View Case »
Hunydee v. U.S., 355 F.2d 183, 17 A.F.T.R.2d 262, 66-1 USTC P 9137
View Case »
Koch v. Specialized Care Services, Inc., 437 F.Supp.2d 362
View Case »
Johnson v. Cadillac Plastic Group, Inc., 930 F.Supp. 1437
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., 384 F.Supp.2d 618, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,733

Facts

The case arose from the actions of A.R. Baron & Co., a New York securities broker-dealer that operated from 1992 until 1996 and engaged in a widespread fraudulent scheme to manipulate stock prices. The plaintiffs, eleven investors, alleged that they were defrauded into purchasing stocks whose prices were artificially inflated due to Baron's manipulative practices. The complaint detailed various fraudulent activities, including unauthorized trades, misrepresentations, and the creation of a false appearance of trading in certain securities, which ultimately led to significant financial losses for the investors.

This action was brought on February 2, 1999 by eleven investors (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against more than fifty individual and corporate defendants (collectively, “Defendants”) arising out of the activities of A.R. Baron & Co. (“Baron”), a New York securities broker-dealer.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether the investors' claims were barred by the statute of limitations, whether class action tolling applied to their claims, and whether the defendants had any duty to disclose information to the investors.

The federal securities fraud and aiding and abetting claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Rule

The court applied the three-year statute of limitations for securities fraud claims, which begins to run on the date of the transaction. It also considered the applicability of class action tolling and the standards for pleading fraud under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The three-year period is an absolute limitation which applies whether or not the investor could have discovered the violation.

Analysis

The court determined that the three-year statute of limitations for the investors' claims began to run at the time of their investments, which occurred prior to February 2, 1996. The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not benefit from class action tolling because they had filed separate suits before class certification was determined. Additionally, the court found that the defendants did not owe a duty of disclosure to the investors, as the clearing house was not responsible for the actions of the broker-dealer.

The three-year statute of limitations for the investors' claims began to run at the time of their investments, which occurred prior to February 2, 1996.

Conclusion

The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss in part, ruling that many of the investors' claims were time-barred due to the statute of limitations. However, some claims related to transactions that occurred within the limitations period were allowed to proceed.

The motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in part, as the court dismissed many of the investors' claims based on the statute of limitations and the lack of a duty to disclose.

The District Court, Casey, J., held that: … the statute of limitations was not tolled by proceedings before bankruptcy court.

You must be