Efforts of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Contribute to 9-0 Supreme Court Victory for Investors in Cyan Case

Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision
upholding the right of investors to bring class actions under the
federal Securities Act of 1933 in state courts, and rejecting the
arguments of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other corporate interest
groups that such actions can be brought only in federal courts. Scott+Scott,
on behalf of a group of the firm’s pension fund clients, co-authored an amicus
curiae brief in support of the pro-investor position. The decision, Cyan,
Inc. v. Beaver County Empl. Retirement Fund, is available on the
Supreme Court’s website at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1439_8njq.pdf.

David R. Scott, managing partner of Scott+Scott, described the decision
as an “important victory” for investors. As Scott explained: “In recent
years, corporate defendants have been increasingly aggressive in trying
to secure the ‘right’ to choose the forum that, for whatever reason,
they believe will be most advantageous for them. However, as the Supreme
Court confirmed today, state courts are just as competent as federal
courts to hear cases under the Securities Act – and the law gives
plaintiff investors (rather than corporate defendants) the right to
choose whether to sue in state or federal court under that Act.” Mr.
Scott added that many state courts have special complex litigation
“sections,” experienced commercial judges, expedited procedures, smaller
caseloads and/or more favorable juror pools, which can all be important
considerations in deciding where to sue a corporation. Scott+Scott has
extensive experience litigating Securities Act cases in both state and
federal courts across the country.

The “Institutional Investors” amicus brief, filed jointly by
Scott+Scott and two other law firms, analyzed the legislative history
and purposes of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the
“PSLRA”), and key provisions of the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”). As the Supreme Court noted, the
corporate defendant (Cyan) “stake[d] much of its case on legislative
purpose and history.” But the Supreme Court effectively adopted the
investor amici’s analysis on these points, and stated that Cyan’s
contrary arguments came “nowhere close” to justifying a ruling for the
defendants. Cyan,slip opinion, at 12.