In the case of Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al. v. Vanessa Simmonds, 2011, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a plaintiff must first make a demand on an issuer before filing suit against it under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The law allows shareholders to sue corporate insiders who profit from short-swing trades in company stock within six months and recover any profits made by those insiders for the corporation's benefit. Vanessa Simmonds had filed multiple lawsuits against several investment banks alleging they violated this provision during initial public offerings (IPOs). However, she did not make any prior demands on these issuers before initiating her suits as traditionally required in derivative actions - where a shareholder sues on behalf of a corporation rather than personally suing directors or officers for damages caused directly to them as individuals. The Ninth Circuit held that no such demand was necessary under Section 16(b), but other circuits disagreed leading to this appeal at SCOTUS level.

In the dissenting opinion for Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al., v. Vanessa Simmonds, it was argued that the majority's decision to dismiss Simmonds' case based on a statute of limitations issue was incorrect. The dissenters believed that the two-year limit should not have started until after she discovered or could reasonably have discovered her injury and its cause. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act which requires corporate insiders to return any short-swing profits they make from buying and selling their company’s stock within six months. According to them, this provision is meant as a strict liability rule designed to deter insider trading by making it unprofitable rather than being an ordinary tort law subject to discovery rules.