FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT APRI L23, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ PUBLISH ]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1595 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock et No. 03 -0 11 73 -CV-F- N M. DANIEL BERMAN, JOSEP H A. STANL EY, JR., on b eh al f of

the m se lve s a nd a ll oth er s si m ilar sit ua te d , Pl ai nt iff

s- App el la nt s , v e r s u s BLOUNT PARRISH & C OMPANY, INC., W ILLIAM B. BLOUNT, L. RUSHTON RICE, C. DEREK PARRISH, JAM ES REYNOLDS, et al
. , D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Alabam a

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 23, 200 8) Be fo re CA RN E S , BA RKE T T a nd MA RC U S , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg e:

Pl ai nti ff s- A ppe llants M. D an ie l Be rm an an d Jose ph A. St an le y , Jr
. appe al the di st ric t co ur t’s o rd er g ran ti ng t h e mo t i o n t o d is m is s fi le d b y Blo un t Pa rri sh & Co ., In c. ( “ Bl ount Parr ish ”) , BP H old ing s, L L C and ce rt ai n in div idu al de fe nda nts in thi s
ac tio n a lle gin g viola tio ns of se ct ion s 12(a ) an d 15 of the S ec ur iti es A ct

of 193 3, 15 U
. S. C. §§ 77l , 77o
. T he c om pla int w as f ile d onMarc h 14 , 2003
. I n th e co m pla int , the P la int if

fs a sse rt ed

tha t D ef en da nts ha d m isr ep re se nte d or om itt ed m at er ia l f ac ts in an of fe ri ng m em or an dum

pr ep ar ed by Bl ount P ar ri sh in c onne ct ionw iththe iss u an ce of Solid W aste Revenue Bonds (“ SW R Bonds”) in 1998 by the Industrial D ev el opm en t B oa rd

f or the Ci ty of T ro y , A la

ba m a. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed the
a c t i o n a s b a rr e db y t h e s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s . We a f

f i rm. W e re vie w the dis tr ic t co ur t’s o rd er dis m iss al pur suant t o R

ule 12( b) (6 ) de
n o v o re v i ew . S ee Ha rr i s v . I VAX Co rp ., 1 8 2 F. 3 d7 9 9 , 8 0 2 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 9 ). We lik ew ise r ev ie w the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

asta tut e of

li m ita tio ns d e novo . Harrison v. D igital Health Plan, 183 F.3d 1235 , 1238 (11th Cir. 1999). In the c om

pla int , Appe llants a lle ge d th at the y pur ch as ed

the S W R B onds in May 199 8. T he y fi le d the co m pla int on Ma rc h 14, 2003
. T he pa rt ie s do not dis put e tha t the thr ee -y ear sta tut e of li m ita tio ns tha t pr ev iou sly c ontro lle d su ch c la im s, f

oundThat sec tion provides that no claim under § 12(a) of the Sec urities Act o f 1 9 3 3 s h all be 1 maintained “unle ss broug ht within one y ear afte r the violation upon which it is based . . . . [and no] more than thre e y ear s afte r the sec urity was bona fide off ere d to the public, or under section 77l(a) (2) of thi s ti tle [no] m or e tha

n thre e y e ars a ft e r t

he sa le .” 15 U. S.C. § 7 7m.

3 in s ec tio n 13 of the Se cu ri tie s A ct of 1933 , 15 U
. S. C. § 77m , ha d e xpi re d w he n th e
com plaint was filed. Appellants argue that the statute of lim itations in Section 804(a) 1 of the S ar ba ne s- O xle y

A ct of 200 2 , P ub. L
. N o. 107 -2 04, 116 S ta t. 745 , 801 (c odi fi ed a t 28 U
. S. C. § 1658 (b )) , w hic h too k ef fe ct on J uly

30, 200 2, r ev ive d th ei r cl ai m s, t hu s re nd eri ng th e co m pl ai nt ti m el y . Se ct ion804 (b ) of

the S ar ba ne s- O xle y

A ct pr ovi de s th e fo llo w ing : [A ] pr iva te r igh t of

a ct iontha t i nvolve s ac la im of f ra ud, de ce it, m anipulatio n, or c ontrivance in cont ravent ion of a regulatory re qui re m en t c onc erni ng the se cu ri tie s law s, a s de fi ne d inse ct ion 3(a)( 47) of the Secur ities Exchange Ac t of 1934 (15 U. S. C. 78c(a)( 47)), m ay be brought not later than the earlier of-- (1 ) 2 y ears a ft er

the dis co ve ry of the f

ac ts c onst itu tin g th e vio la tio n; o r (2 ) 5 y ears a ft er

suc h vi ola tio n. 28 U
. S. C. § 16 58( b) ( em

pha sis a dde d)
. Appe llants ur ge tha t be ca use the y f ile d th ei r
com plaint within five y ears of the May 1998 bond purcha s e, t he Sar banes-Oxley Act’s s ta tu te of l im it at io ns rev iv edth ei r pr ev io us ly exp ire d s ecu rit ie s cl ai m s. T his a rg um en t ha s be ensou ndl y r ej ect ed by e ve ry c ir cu it co urt t o ha ve
co nsi de re d it
. Se e, e. g. , In re E nte r. Mor tga ge A cc ep ta nc e Co
. , Se c. L iti g. , 391 F
. 3dAs the district court r ecognized, we had no oc casion to address t he retroac tivity issue in our 2 Tello dec isions. S ee T ello v. Dea n Wit ter Rey

nolds, I nc., 494 F .3d 956 , 9 7 5 (1 1th Cir. 2007) (o bs e rv ingtha

t be c a us e pla int if

fs ’ c la ims we re ti me- barr e d und e r o ld a nd ne w l imi tatio n p e ri od s, “the que stion of whether

the [S arba

nes-Oxley

Act] statute of limit ations revives se curities-f raud actions that we re time-ba

rre d under the former

statute of limitations i s not presente d in this case.”) ; Tello v. Dea

n Wit ter Rey

nolds, I nc., 410 F .3d 1275, 1294 n.19 (11th Cir. 2005) (interloc utory appea l addre ssing issue of

whether plaintiffs had inquiry

notice of c laims aga i nst Dean Witter; declining to rea ch issue of r etroa ctivity of Sarba nes-Oxley

due to undeve loped re cord)
. 4 401, 406 -0 7, 410 ( 2d C ir
. 200 4) ( hol din g th at 28 U.S.C. §1658( b) did not r ev ive expi re d s ecuriti es fra

ud claim s because neither statute nor legislative hist ory contained express r etroactivity com m and, and resurre ction of pr eviousl y tim e-barr ed cl aim wou ld ha ve im

pe rm iss ibl e re tr oa ct ive e ff ec t of str ipp ing de fe nda nts of
co m ple te af fi rm at ive de fe nse the y pr ev iou sly poss es se d an d m ay ha ve reas onabl y relied upon); see also Margolies v. D eason 464 F. 3d 54 7, 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (sam e); L ie be rm an v. Cam

br idg e Partne rs , L
. L
. C. , 432 F
. 3d 4 82, 492 ( 3d C ir
. 200 5) ( hol din g th at Sarb an es -Ox le y

do es no t re vi ve ex pi red sec ur it ie s cl ai m s) ; In re ADC Te lecom m ., Inc. Sec . L itig., 409 F. 3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 2005 ) (sam e); Foss v. B ear, S t e a rn s & C o . , 3 9 4 F
. 3 d5 4 0 , 5 4 2 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( s a me ) ; G l a s e r v . E n z o B i o c h e m, Inc. , 126 F. App’ x 593 , 598 (4th Cir. 2005 ) (unpublis hed) (sam e). 2 W e nowj oinour

sis te r ci rc uit s a nd h old

tha t the a m en de d li m ita tio ns pe ri od of S ar ba ne s- O xle y doe s not re viv e se cu ri tie s cl ai m s on w hic h th e pr ev iou s st at ute of lim ita tio ns had ru n. In the co m pla int , the A ppe llants al le ge d th at the y pur ch as ed

the SWR Bon ds in May 1998
. U nde r the thr ee -y ear lim ita tio ns pe ri od of 15 U
. S. C. §5

77m , the ir

se ct ion12( a) a nd s ec tio n 15 c la im s e xpi re d no la ter th an May 200 1. Be ca use a ll of the Appe llant s’ c la im s had e xpi re d be fo re the e ff ec tiv e da te of

the Sarb an es -O xle y

A ct ’ s ne w sta tut e of lim ita tio ns bec am e ef fe ct ive on July

30, 200 2, the district court did n ot err by dism issin g the com

plaint pu rsuant to Rule 12(b)(6). AFFIRMED.