Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

warranted under these circumstances because of the self-concealing nature of the defendants’
conduct.
Special Situations Fund III, L.P. v. Am. Dental Partners, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Mass.
2011).
The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, holding that the plaintiffs’
claims under Section 18(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were barred by the one-year
statute of limitations. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that their claims were tolled under
American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), in which the Supreme Court held
that the filing of a class-action lawsuit tolls the statute of limitations for putative class members.
The court determined that because the class action on which the plaintiffs relied for tolling
involved a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and not a claim under Section 18(a),
American Pipe tolling did not apply. The court held that the legal standards for proving Section
18 and Section 10(b) claims are “sufficiently distinct” that filing a class action alleging a
violation of Section 10(b) did not toll the statute of limitations for plaintiffs’ Section 18 claim.
Mass. Bricklayers & Mason Funds v. Deutsche Alt-A Secs., 273 F.R.D. 363 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).
The court denied a bank’s motion to intervene as a plaintiff in a class action because its
claim was time barred. The bank purchased securities, which were offered in 2006, in December
2007. It sought to intervene in the class action on January 11, 2011, more than three years after
the offering. The applicable three-year statute of repose for claims under the Securities Act of
1933 barred the claim, unless tolling applied.
The court held that the tolling doctrine of American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S.
538 (1974) (where under certain circumstances, the commencement of a class action tolls the
running of the applicable statute of limitations for all class members, even where class status is
later denied) did not apply because the bank was not a member of the originally named class,
which included only those who purchased securities between May 2006 and May 2007. The
bank did not purchase its securities until December 2007, therefore the tolling rule was
inapplicable.
Plumbers’ & Pipefitters’ Local No. 562 Supplemental Plan v. J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp. I,
2011 WL 6182121 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2011).
The court denied, in part, the defendants’ motion to dismiss because plaintiffs’ claims
under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 were timely filed and because
additional claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act that were added later related back
to the filing of the original complaint. Defendants argued that plaintiffs had constructive notice,
M.1
M.1
M.1
321