In the case of Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston et al., 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs in a securities fraud lawsuit could pursue their claims under common law fraud principles instead of being limited to remedies provided by federal securities laws. The defendants, an accounting firm and its partners, were accused of issuing false and misleading audit reports which influenced the plaintiff's decision to purchase certain stocks leading to financial loss when those companies went bankrupt. The court held that while federal law does provide specific protections against fraudulent practices in security transactions, it does not preclude individuals from seeking additional relief under state common law where appropriate evidence is presented.

In the dissenting opinion for Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston et al., Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision to allow private securities fraud actions under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, even when a more specific provision might apply, was inconsistent with Congress' intent and previous Court rulings. He believed that allowing such claims would undermine carefully crafted statutory schemes designed by Congress to balance competing interests in complex regulatory areas like securities law. Furthermore, he contended that it could lead to unpredictable results due to varying interpretations of what constitutes fraudulent behavior under §10(b). Finally, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on businesses and capital markets due to increased litigation risks.