Sixth Circuit sides with investors on securities fraud statute of limitations

May 1, 2012 by

In Nolfi v. Ohio Kentucky Oil Corp., 2012 WL 1109634, __ F3d __ (6th Cir. 2012), the Sixth Circuit considered the timeliness of a private securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) and upheld a jury verdict for plaintiffs.  Defendants argued that plaintiffs had a duty to investigate “suspicious facts” surrounding the investments which triggered the two year statute of limitations and barred the Section 10(b) claims.  The Sixth Circuit disagreed.  Applying the analysis outlined in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 130 S. Ct.784 (2010), the court held that the limitations period to file a Section 10(b) claim begins to run when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered facts establishing a violation, including intent to deceive—not when the plaintiff should have begun to investigate.

Steve Larson
An experienced trial lawyer who handles both hourly and contingent fee cases, Steve has expertise in class actions, consumer cases, antitrust litigation, securities litigation, corporate disputes, intellectual property disputes, unfair competition claims, employment matters, and disputes involving family wealth. Steve regularly represents individuals and businesses in federal and state court and has obtained class-wide recovery in multiple class actions. A veteran practitioner, Steve's clients value his creative approach to resolving complex litigation matters.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.