In the first two installments, I exposited Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011), and Lorenzo v. S.E.C., 587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019), respectively, both essential to understanding S.E.C. v. Rio Tinto PLC, 41 F.4th 47 (2d Cir. 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s most recent holding regarding Rule 10b-5 “scheme” liability. See 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5.

Now we examine how the “Mother Court” of federal securities law has tended to that branch of the mighty judicial oak rooted in that venerable regulation. See Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 276 (2010) (Stevens, J., concurring).

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]