In Re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that securities exchanges are entitled to absolute immunity from liability arising from their exercise or non-exercise of quasi-governmental regulatory functions
• holding that the “timing and method of the announcement of an official [SRO] investigation is entitled to absolute immunity”
• observing that the “propriety of [an SRO’s] actions or inactions” has nothing to do whether those actions are protected from suit by absolute immunity
• finding that the exchange had immunity given that the underlying actions involved “NYSE’s action or inaction with respect to trading on the Exchange, which is indisputably within the NYSE’s regulatory powers”
• explaining that district court incorrectly read Nortel to mean that action under Rule 10b-5 for false statements about security purchased by plaintiff lies only against issuer of the security or that only statements about security issuer are actionable
• SRO immune from liability for the timing and method of announcing official investigations because those actions were “central to effectuating the [Exchange’s] regulatory decisionmaking”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).