Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice
571 U.S. ___ (2014)

Annotate this Case

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

Nos. 12–79, 12–86, and 12–88

_________________

CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP, PETITIONER

12–79      v.

SAMUEL TROICE et al.

WILLIS OF COLORADO INCORPORATED, et al., PETITIONERS

12–86      v.

SAMUEL TROICE et al.

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, PETITIONER

12–88      v.

SAMUEL TROICE et al.

on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit

[February 26, 2014]

     Justice Thomas, concurring.

     I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that the “misrepresentation[s] . . . of . . . material fact” alleged in this case are not properly considered “in connection with” transactions in covered securities. 15 U. S. C. §78bb(f)(1)(A). We have said that the statutory phrase “in connection with” warrants a “broad interpretation,” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U. S. 71, 85 (2006) , though not so broad as to reach any “common-law fraud that happens to involve securities,” see SECv. Zandford, 535 U. S. 813, 820 (2002) . Considered in isolation, however, that phrase “is essentially ‘indeterminat[e]’ because connections, like relations, ‘stop nowhere.’ ” Maracich v. Spears, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 9) (some internal quotation marks omitted). The phrase thus “provides little guidance without a limiting principle consistent with the structure of the statute and its other provisions.” Ibid. As I understand it, the opinion of the Court resolves this case by applying a limiting principle to the phrase “in connection with” that is “consistent with the statutory framework and design” of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, id., at ___ (slip op., at 10), and also consistent with our precedents.

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.