The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions in two cases yesterday:
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, No. 12-79: The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (Litigation Act) forbids securities class actions based upon state law where the plaintiffs allege “a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase of a covered security.” 15 U.S.C. §78bb(f)(1). In this case, respondents filed class actions under state law with respect to Allen Stanford and his companies’ purported Ponzi scheme. The respondents alleged that they purchased uncovered securities, but that the defendants falsely told the victims that the uncovered securities were backed by covered securities (without any allegation that the misrepresentations led anyone to buy or sell covered securities). The District Court held that the Litigation Act was triggered by the misrepresentations about covered securities, but the Fifth Circuit reversed. The Court affirmed, holding that under these circumstances, the Litigation Act does not apply.
The Court's decision is available here.
United States v. Apel, No. 12-1038: Petitioner and anti-war activist John Apel was convicted for trespassing and barred from Vandenberg Air Force Base. He continued, however, to enter the “protest area” of the Base, a Government designated area for peaceful protests that is adjacent to a public highway that traverses the Base. Apel was convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. §1382, which makes it a crime to reenter a “military . . . installation” after being ordered not to do so. The District Court rejected Apel’s defense that §1382 does not apply to the protest area, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Court vacated and remanded that decision, holding that where a place with a defined boundary is under the administration of a military development, the limits of the “military installation” for purposes of §1382 are coterminous with the commanding officer’s area of responsibility.
The Court's decision is available here.