10
lead to a result ’so bizarre’ that Congress could not have intended it." Central Bank, 511 U.S. at 188.
B. THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT SECTION 10(b) AND RULE 10b-5 MUST BE CONSTRUED BROADLY TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR GOALS
The Court recognized the broad remedial goals of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 in Superintendent of Ins. of New York v. Bankers Life', 404 U.S. 6, 11 n.7 (1971):
[We do not] think it sound to dismiss a complaint merely because the alleged scheme does not involve the type of fraud that is "usually associated with the sale or purchase of securities." We believe that § l O(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden variety type of fraud or present a unique form of deception. Novel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws. (quoting A. T. Brod & Co. v. Perlow, 375 F.2d 393,397 (1967).)
C. THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY CONSTRUED SECTION 10(b) AND RULE 10b-5 AS APPLYING TO CONDUCT BEYOND THE LIMITATIONS APPLIED BY THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
In the more than seventy years since the Securities Exchange Act was enacted, the Court has never limited Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 in the way that the Eighth Circuit has done here. Rather, the Court has consistently
