In the 2009 case of Merck & Co., Inc. v. Richard Reynolds, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed issues related to statute of limitations in securities fraud cases under federal law. The plaintiffs, investors in Merck's stock, alleged that the company had misled them about potential liabilities associated with its painkiller drug Vioxx and filed a lawsuit after they learned about these risks from an FDA warning letter issued to Merck in 2001 and subsequent events leading up to Vioxx’s withdrawal from market in 2004 due to safety concerns. However, Merck argued that their claim was time-barred because it was not brought within two years "after discovery" of facts constituting violation as required by law. The Supreme Court held that for purposes of this two-year limit on filing claims (statute of limitations), 'discovery' includes not only when plaintiff becomes aware of certain facts suggesting wrongdoing but also when he should have discovered through reasonable diligence all essential elements needed for his claim including defendant's intent or scienter - which is often last fact plaintiff learns since it relates more to what defendant knew than what he did or failed do. Therefore, even though some relevant information might have been available earlier via FDA warning letter etc., full extent and nature of alleged misrepresentation could only be known later once more details emerged regarding Vioxx’s health risks and how much company knew about them beforehand; hence suit wasn't late-filed as per court ruling.

In the dissenting opinion for Merck & Co., Inc. v. Richard Reynolds et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of the statute of limitations was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that under a proper reading of the law, plaintiffs should have been aware they had a claim when they suffered an economic loss due to Merck’s alleged misrepresentation about its drug Vioxx, not when they became aware that this conduct might be legally actionable as fraud. This would mean their lawsuit was filed too late and should be dismissed on those grounds alone. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's decision as creating unnecessary confusion by introducing subjective elements into what should be an objective analysis based on known facts rather than potential legal theories or outcomes.