Page:Amicus brief - Stoneridge v Scientific-Atlanta - California State Teachers’ Retirement System.pdf/18

 lead to a result ’so bizarre’ that Congress could not have intended it." Central Bank, 511 U.S. at 188.

The Court recognized the broad remedial goals of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ''in Superintendent of Ins. of New York v. Bankers Life''', 404 U.S. 6, 11 n.7 (1971):

"[We do not] think it sound to dismiss a complaint merely because the alleged scheme does not involve the type of fraud that is "usually associated with the sale or purchase of securities." We believe that § l O(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden variety type of fraud or present a unique form of deception. Novel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws. (quoting A. T. Brod & Co. v. Perlow, 375 F.2d 393,397 (1967).)"

In the more than seventy years since the Securities Exchange Act was enacted, the Court has never limited Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 in the way that the Eighth Circuit has done here. Rather, the Court has consistently