Merck & Co., Inc., et al. v. Richard Reynolds et al. (559 U.S. 633)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 27, 2010 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 559 U.S. 633 · 130 S. Ct. 1784
- Decided
- April 27, 2010
- Term
- October Term 2009
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. This ease concerns the timeliness of a complaint filed in a private securities fraud action. The complaint was timely if filed no more than two years after the plaintiffs “discover[ed] the facts constituting the violation.” 28 U. S. C. § 1658(b)(1). Construing this limitations statute for the first time, we hold that a cause of action accrues (1) when the plaintiff did in fact discover, or (2) when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered, “the facts constituting the violation” — whichever comes first. We also hold that the “facts constituting the violation” include the fact of scienter, “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud,” Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 194, n. 12 (1976). Applying this standard, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ determination that the complaint filed here was timely. I The action before us involves a claim by a group of investors (the plaintiffs, respondents here) that Merck & Co. and others (petitioners here, hereinafter Merck) knowingly misrepresented the risks of heart attacks accompanying the use of Merck’s painkilling drug, Vioxx (leading to economic losses when the risks later became apparent). The plaintiffs brought an action for securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. See 48 Stat. 891, as amended, 15 U. S.C.…
Excerpt of a 35,301-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.