Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2008 · Corporations

552 U.S. 148 (2008)

Updated August 1, 2026

Corporationsscheme liabilityrelianceSection 10(b)Rule 10b-5private right of actionfraud-on-the-marketsecondary actors

Facts

Charter, seeking to meet projected operating cash flow numbers, arranged to overpay Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola $20 per set-top box, with the understanding that the suppliers would return the overpayment by purchasing advertising from Charter at inflated prices. The transactions allegedly lacked economic substance, and the parties used backdated and misleading documents to make the set-top box and advertising transactions appear unrelated so Charter's auditor would not detect the arrangement. Charter then recorded the advertising payments as revenue and capitalized the box purchases, inflating revenue and operating cash flow by about $17 million in financial statements filed with the SEC and released to the public. Respondents had no role in preparing or disseminating Charter's financial statements, and their own financial statements booked the transactions as a wash.

Issue

May investors maintain a private action under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against secondary actors who allegedly participated in a scheme that enabled an issuer to publish misleading financial statements, when those secondary actors made no public statements and owed no duty to disclose to investors? More specifically, is the reliance element satisfied when the investors relied on the issuer's public financial statements rather than on the secondary actors' own statements or deceptive acts?

Rule

In a private § 10(b) action, the conduct of a secondary actor must satisfy each element of the claim, including reliance. Reliance on the defendant's own deceptive acts is essential, and the recognized presumptions of reliance apply only when there is a material omission by one with a duty to disclose or when public statements are reflected in the market price under the fraud-on-the-market doctrine. Where the secondary actor had no duty to disclose and its deceptive acts were not communicated to the investing public, those acts are too remote to satisfy reliance, so private § 10(b) liability does not attach.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakefront Biologics, a public company in Chicago, secretly arranged with its shipping vendor, Prairie Route Logistics, to prepay inflated freight charges, with the understanding that the vendor would later buy consulting services from Lakefront at the same inflated amount. Lakefront then used the consulting payments to report higher revenue in SEC filings, but Prairie Route never made any public statement and had no role in drafting or releasing those filings.

Investors who bought Lakefront stock sue Prairie Route in a private Rule 10b-5 action, alleging Prairie Route knowingly participated in a deceptive scheme. Which is the strongest argument for dismissing the claim?

Explanation. In a private § 10(b) action, each element must be satisfied as to the defendant, including reliance. The majority held that conduct itself can be deceptive, so the absence of a spoken or written misstatement is not dispositive. But where a secondary actor had no duty to disclose and its deceptive acts were not communicated to the investing public, investors cannot show reliance except through an indirect chain that is too remote. That is the basis for dismissal here. (Derived from Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (2008).)