​Credit Suisse Securities V. Simmonds

Argument Date: November 29, 2011

Weather the two-year time limit for bringing a lawsuit under section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is fined when the defendant has failed to comply with the disclosure requirements of Section 16(a). The constitutional issue is that does the 2 year limit in Section 16(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act to file certain insider trading claims begin if the insider has not done what he is supposed to do under Section 16(a)? 

Credit Suisse Securities is a company based out of Zurich, Switzerland. Their a bank that provides company loan for a wide range of clients. Vanessa Simmonds was an investor who owned tech stocks underwritten by Credit Suisse and several other investment banks. Simmonds alleges that the underwriter for the IPO's were in violation of insider trading laws by manipulating stock prices with short-swing transactions. IPO stands for Initial Public Offerings which is the first sale of stock from a private company to the general public.

According to what has happened during the case argument, the court does not agree with either side of the argument. Most of the articles I've read reporting out on what happened during the argument are saying that when a decision is made it will most likely not side with wither party but instead find a middle ground in which no one's argument is fully supported. But it might also lead to systems put into place to prevent this from happening in the future once again.

Links:

"Argument recap: A middle ground on tolling of insider trading claims?"

"Argument preview: Tolling the statute of limitations for insider trading claims"