Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Bennett)

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a securities fraud claim accrued when the plaintiff knew or should have known the facts constituting the violation
• holding that when a “statute says that the plaintiffs claim accrues only after the ‘discovery’ of ... facts,” a limitations period does not “begin before ‘discovery’ can take place”
• holding that because no event preceding the critical date constituted “discovery” of facts necessary to bring the complaint, the plaintiffs’ suit was timely
• holding that \facts showing scienter are among those that 'constitute] the violation’ ” and must be \discovered” for a claim to accrue
• holding that “discovery” as used in 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b)(1) “encompasses not only those facts the plaintiff actually knew, but also those facts a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have known”
• holding that \scienter\ is a fact which a plaintiff must discover in order for the statute of limitations to begin running on a § 10(b) claim under the Securities Exchange Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).