Merck & Co. v. Reynolds

Media Items
Advocates
Kannon K. Shanmugam (for the petitioners)
David C. Frederick (for the respondents)
Malcolm L. Stewart (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
08-905
Petitioner: 
Merck & Co., Inc., et al.
Respondent: 
Richard Reynolds, et al.
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Merck & Co. v. Reynolds U.S. ___
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_905)
Facts of the Case: 

Investors brought a securities fraud class action suit against Merck & Co. in a New Jersey federal district court. They alleged the company had misled investors about the drug Vioxx's safety and commercial viability. Merck moved to dismiss the claim arguing that the investors had been put on "inquiry notice" more than two years before they filed suit, and thus the statute of limitations had run. The federal district court agreed and dismissed the suit.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. It recognized that under the "inquiry notice" standard, plaintiffs are put on notice for the purpose of the statute of limitations in federal securities fraud litigation at the "possibility" of wrongdoing. Moreover, the court held that the investors had not been put on "inquiry notice" more than two years before they filed suit, and thus the statute of limitation had not run.

Question: 

Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit err in its application of the "inquiry notice" standard?