Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶83

Second, Cisco and the United States argue that this Court’s decision in Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U. S. 164 (1994), forecloses aiding-and-abetting liability here, reading that case to permit aiding-and-abetting liability only if a statute expressly so states. Central Bank has minimal bearing here. It involved the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the text of which limits liability to those who “‘directly or indirectly’” engage in certain kinds of conduct. Id., at 171. The Court there recognized that Congress “has taken a statute-bystatute approach to civil aiding and abetting.” Id., at 182. The Court reasoned that the text of that statute did not extend liability to aiders and abettors because they do not necessarily engage in the underlying activity they facilitate. Id., at 176–177. That conclusion was buttressed by the fact that it was…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.