In a matter of first impression in the circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s dismissal order on the ground that the longer statute of limitation contained in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) does not serve to revive claims that had already expired under the previous, shorter statute of limitations.  Berman v. Blount Parrish & Co., No. 07-15956 (April 23, 2008).

The parties did not dispute that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred under the previously applicable statute of limitations.  Instead, plaintiffs argued that their already expired claims were “revived” by the longer statute of limitations established by SOX after the expiration of their claims.  The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that plaintiffs’ argument “has been soundly rejected by every circuit to have considered it.  We now join our sister circuits and hold that the amended limitations period of Sarbanes-Oxley does not revive securities claims on which the previous statute of limitations had run.”

For a full copy of the opinion, please click here.