U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status


Docket Number


2016 Term

Oral Argument Date

April 17, 2017


Questions Presented

1. Does the filing of a putative class action serve, under the American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah rule, to satisfy the three-year time limitation in Section 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members? (Question granted in Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS, Inc.)

2. May a member of a timely filed putative class action file an individual suit on the same causes of action before class certification is decided, notwithstanding the expiration of the relevant time limitations?

Case Updates


June 26, 2017

The U.S. Supreme Court held that American Pipe’s tolling rule does not apply to the three-year statute of repose for claims brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, because statutes of repose, as opposed to statutes of limitations, are not subject to equitable tolling. The ruling provides defendants a complete defense against securities actions brought outside the repose period and gives them greater certainty about the extent of their potential liability.

U.S. Chamber urges Supreme Court to hold that American Pipe tolling does not apply to statutes of repose

April 05, 2017

The U.S. Chamber filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hold that statutes of repose confer substantive rights, which are not subject to judge-made tolling.

The Chamber’s brief explains that statutes of repose reflect a legislative decision that defendants, at a certain and readily ascertained point, are entitled to peace and need no longer worry about defending actions taken long ago. Allowing class-action tolling of statutes of repose would override Congress’s and the states’ legislative judgments, violating the separation of powers and depriving defendants of the certainty that statutes of repose are meant to provide. The brief also details how plaintiffs’ lawyers have abused the American Pipe rule to stretch out the repose period far beyond what Congress or the state legislature selected.

William M. Jay, Stephen D. Poss, David R. Fox, Brian E. Pastuszenski, and Daniel E. Roeser of Goodwin Procter LLP served as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

Case Documents