Legal News

U.S. Supreme Court Says Investors Can Sue Law Firms Connected with Stanford Ponzi Scheme under State Laws
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

In Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice et al., the U.S. Supreme Court has held that investors in Stanford’s Ponzi scheme are not barred by the SLUSA from suing Chadbourne & Parke and Proskeur Rose, as the investors did not purchase covered securities, but purchased uncovered securities.

In the instant case, investors had initially brought four class actions under state law against the two law firms alleging they had negligently employed lawyer Thomas Sjoblom, who helped delay a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into Stanford’s conduct. Further, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants had helped Allen Stanford and his companies perpetrate the Ponzi scheme by falsely representing that uncovered securities the plaintiffs were purchasing were backed by covered securities.


The District court dismissed each civil class action under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (Litigation Act) holding that there was sufficient reason to bar the suits under provisions that forbid large securities class actions “based upon the statutory or common law of any State” in which the plaintiffs allege “a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase of sale of a covered security.”

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision holding the falsehoods involved in the matter were too tangentially related to the fraud to trigger the Litigation Act.

On further appeal, this week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “Litigation Act does not preclude the plaintiff’s state-law class actions.”

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!

In its opinion, the court observed, “The basic purpose of the 1934 and 1933 regulatory statutes is to protect investor confidence in the securities markets. Nothing in those statutes, or in the Litigation Act, suggests their object is to protect persons whose connection with the statutorily defined securities is more remote than buying or selling.”

The Supreme Court also refused to accept the law firms were protected even though their connection to the sales and purchases of the securities were remote observing, “a broader interpretation of the necessary statutory ‘connection’ would interfere with state efforts to provide remedies for victims of of ordinary state-law frauds, despite the fact that the Litigation Act purposefully seeks to avoid such results by maintaining State’s legal authority over matters that are primarily of state concern.”


Interesting Legal Sites You May Like




Search Now

Mid-level Litigation Associate Attorney


Baltimore office of our client seeks mid-level litigation associate attorney with 3+ years of experi...

Apply Now

Litigation Associate Attorney


Columbia office is seeking a commercial litigation attorney with 2-4 years of experience.

Apply Now

Junior Employment Litigation Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

San Francisco office is seeking an attorney with 2-3 years of employment litigation, class action or...

Apply Now

Estate Planning Associate Attorney


Longmont office of our client seeks associate attorney with estate planning, elder law, probate expe...

Apply Now


Patent / IP Paralegal


Patent / IP Paralegal This is an exciting opportunity to work for one of the top law firms in the...

Apply now

Social Security Legal Assistant - Immediate Opening!


Scranton-based workers comp, social security, and personal injury law office is seeking a social sec...

Apply now

Associate Attorney

USA-NY-New York City

Law firm seeks associate that must be admitted to practice law in New York  to attend Civil cou...

Apply now

Associate Attorney - Insurance Defense Litigation


Growing Long Island insurance defense firm seeking 1 to 5 year associate attorney for their Hun...

Apply now


To Top