15 U.S.C. § 77m
Limitation of actions
No action shall be maintained to enforce any liability created under section 77k or 77l(a)(2) of this title unless brought within one year after the discovery of the untrue statement or the omission, or after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence, or, if the action is to enforce a liability created under section 77l(a)(1) of this title, unless brought within one year after the violation upon which it is based. In no event shall any such action be brought to enforce a liability created under section 77k or 77l(a)(1) of this title more than three years after the security was bona fide offered to the public, or under section 77l(a)(2) of this title more than three years after the sale.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 819
cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1941–2026 · leading case: California Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. ANZ Sec., Inc., 582 U.S. 497 (2017).
California Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. ANZ Sec., Inc., 582 U.S. 497 (2017). “" 15 U.S.C. § 77m . So there are two time bars in the quoted provision; and the second one, the 3-year bar, is central to this case.”
Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Nomura Holding Am., Inc., 873 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2017). “See 15 U.S.C. § 77m (three-year period of repose); Va.”
Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (2010). “____ (2010) 11 Opinion of the Court ous formulations the one in 15 U. S. C. §77m, on which the concurrence relies.”
In Re Elec. Data Sys. Corp. \ERISA\" Litig.", 305 F. Supp. 2d 658 (E.D. Tex. 2004). “2004) (questioning the “preponderance” of precedent where it does not provide compelling analysis).”
In Re Global Crossing, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 313 F. Supp. 2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “15 U.S.C. § 77m. The three-year limitation is absolute, and applies whether or not the investor could have discovered the violation.”
Cohen v. Nw. Growth Corp., 385 F. Supp. 2d 935 (D.S.D. 2005). “In reply, Defendants contend that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 does not apply to Section 12(a)(2) claims under the Securities Act and that, therefore, Count I is governed by the statute of limitations in 15 U.S.C. § 77m. Defendants reiterate then-arguments regarding the lack…”
TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001). “, 15 U. S. C. § 77m (1994 ed., Supp. V); [4] 42 U.”
Starnes Canale Funeral Directors v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select, 821 F.3d 780 (6th Cir. 2016). “Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77m, states as follows: No action shall be maintained to enforce any liability created under section 77k or 77Z(a)(2) of this title unless brought within one year after the discovery of the untrue statement or the omission,…”
In Re Sterling Foster & Co., Inc., Sec. Lit., 222 F. Supp. 2d 216 (E.D.N.Y 2002). “The Court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims because the plaintiffs have such standing.”
Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., 764 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2014). “See 15 U.S.C. § 77m. The district court denied the motion, concluding FIRREA’s Extender Stat *1205 ute applies to Section 13’s three-year repose period.”
Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. UBS Americas, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “15 U.S.C. § 77m (emphasis added). Thus, under Section 13, a suit alleging that a defendant violated either Section 11 or Section 12(a)(2) must be filed (a) within one year of the date that the plaintiff discovered the violation, or (b) within three years of the date that the…”
Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 (1976). “84 , with 15 U. S. C. § 77m. See 1934 Act, § 207, 48 Stat.”
15 U.S.C. § 77m(a): 1 case
SEC v. Patel, et al., 2009 DNH 143 (D.N.H. 2009).
15 U.S.C. § 77m(b)(2)(B)(ii): 1 case
SEC v. Patel, et al., 2009 DNH 143 (D.N.H. 2009).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.