Printer Friendly

Securities law statute of limitations ruling overturned.

Congress overturned a favorable ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that limited the time investors had to bring securities fraud suits.

In Lampf v. Gilbertson, the Court ruled litigation instituted under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5 must begin within one year after discovery of the violation and no more than three years after the fraudulent act itself (see Legal Scene, JofA, Sept.91, page 28).

Since the decision applied retroactively, lower courts would have dismissed many pending security fraud claims on statute of limitations grounds. Congress, fearing defendants such as Charles Keating and Michael Milken might benefit, began immediate action to overturn the ruling.

As a result, one of the provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, signed into law by the president last December, is elimination of the retroactive impact of Lampf. Under the new law, plaintiffs with securities fraud actions pending on or before June 19, 1991-the date of the Lampf decision-are beneficiaries of the more liberal statute of limitations periods preceding Lampf.

Congress is now considering muting completely the favorable impact of the decision for defendants. Currently pending is the Securities Investors Legal Rights Act of 1991. If enacted, the bill will provide investors with three years to bring an action from the date of discovery of a violation but no more than five years from the date of the fraudulent act. This likely will lead to an increase in litigation against accountants and other defendants involved in securities litigation.
COPYRIGHT 1992 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1992, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Journal of Accountancy
Date:May 1, 1992
Words:256
Previous Article:Oral misrepresentations suffice for securities action.
Next Article:AICPA poll casts doubt on tax proposal effectiveness.
Topics:


Related Articles
FDIC claim does not revive statute of limitations period.
Statute of limitations bars third-party investors' claims.
Statute of limitations clock starts ticking on discovery.
Beware of the borrowing statute; time may run out.
Court rules on statute of limitations.
Statute of limitations triggered by deficiency notice.
More days before deadline.
Supreme Court asked to protect access to state courts.
California court allows delayed discovery of medical device claim.
The class stops the clock: some injured people don't consider litigation until it seems too late. But a decades-old Supreme Court decision may help...

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters