Bound Volume 514 - Supreme Court of the United States

514us1$41z 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT
Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995)
Opinion of the Court
Theodore B. Olson argued the cause for respondents.
With him on the briefs were Larry L. Simms, Theodore J.
Boutrous, Jr., John K. Bush, D. Jarrett Arp, Barbara B.
Edelman, Barry Friedman, James E. Burns, Jr., Kevin
Muck, William E. Johnson, Robert M. Watt III, Robert S.
Miller, and L. Clifford Craig.*
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether § 27A(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to the extent that it
requires federal courts to reopen final judgments in private
civil actions under § 10(b) of the Act, contravenes the Constitution’s
separation of powers or the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment.
I
In 1987, petitioners brought a civil action against respondents
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky. The complaint alleged that in 1983 and
1984 respondents had committed fraud and deceit in the sale
of stock in violation of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b–5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The case was mired in pretrial proceedings in the
District Court until June 20, 1991, when we decided Lampf,
Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S.
350. Lampf held that “[l]itigation instituted pursuant to
§ 10(b) and Rule 10b–5 . . . must be commenced within one
year after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation
and within three years after such violation.” Id., at
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the National Association
of Securities and Commercial Law Attorneys by James M. Finberg
and Paul J. Mishkin; for the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. by Richard
G. Taranto, H. Bartow Farr III, and Stewart M. Weltman; and for Michael
B. Dashjian, pro se.
Joseph E. Schmitz, Zachary D. Fasman, Judith Richards Hope, Charles
A. Shanor, Daniel J. Popeo, and Paul D. Kamenar filed a brief for the
Washington Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
213