News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Foley & Lardner LLP

FINRA In-House Disciplinary Proceedings Survive Post-Jarkesy Challenge … For Now

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On September 4, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied D. Allen Blankenship’s challenge to enjoin the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) disciplinary action...more

A&O Shearman

Second Circuit Dismisses Rule 10b-5 Claims Based On Pure Omissions Theory Following Remand From The United States Supreme Court

A&O Shearman on

On August 19, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, putative class action claims brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act...more

Dechert LLP

Securities and Derivative Litigation: Quarterly Update - September 2024

Dechert LLP on

Highlight the Third Circuit’s adoption of the de novo standard of review in evaluating appeals of derivative litigation demand-futility decisions; Explore the Sixth Circuit’s recognition of the applicability of the...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Assessing the Impact of Recent Supreme Court Decisions on Section 337 Practice – Less than Meets the Eye?

Late last month, the Supreme Court issued two opinions which seemingly shook up the field of administrative law.  As explained in this article, however, while both decisions bear significantly on certain administrative...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Supreme Court Decision in SEC v. Jarkesy Limits the SEC’s Ability to Seek Civil Penalties

On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, holding that “[w]hen the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury...more

K&L Gates LLP

Jarkesy's Impact on Agency Enforcement Proceedings: Potential Implications for the SEC and Beyond

K&L Gates LLP on

On 27 June 2024, in a ruling much-anticipated by the securities industry and other similarly regulated industries, the Supreme Court (the Court) held in SEC v. Jarkesy that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

U.S. Supreme Court to Clarify Securities Fraud Pleading Requirements for Falsity and Scienter During 2024–2025 Term

On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Nvidia Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB [No. 23-970]. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to address, for the first time in over a decade, the exacting...more

Bracewell LLP

Supreme Court Declares SEC Lacks In-House Authority to Impose Civil Penalties

Bracewell LLP on

The United States Supreme Court struck another major blow to the Securities Exchange Commission’s enforcement arsenal, finding that its oft-used practice of imposing monetary penalties in its in-house administrative...more

Vinson & Elkins LLP

The Supreme Court Strips SEC of Fraud-Fighting Forum, Sparking Debate on Broader Implications for Federal Enforcement

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

For more than a decade, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has been able to bring enforcement actions in either federal court or the agency’s internal venue. Not anymore. On June 27, 2024, the U.S....more

Proskauer - Corporate Defense and Disputes

Supreme Court Bars SEC Administrative Proceedings for Civil Penalties

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks to impose civil penalties for violations of the federal...more

Alston & Bird

Supreme Court to Hear Two Important Appeals Regarding the Requirements for Pleading Securities Fraud

Alston & Bird on

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals of the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in the Facebook and NVIDIA putative securities class action cases. Our Securities Litigation Group breaks down the potentially far-ranging...more

Mintz

SCOTUS Grants Certiorari to Hear NVIDIA Fraud Appeal on PSLRA Pleading Standard

Mintz on

Last week, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:Or Fonder AB., Case No. 23-970, to address two fundamental questions about how federal securities fraud cases must be pled to survive...more

Troutman Pepper

US Supreme Court to Hear Nvidia Crypto Mining Case on Securities Pleading Standard

Troutman Pepper on

On June 17, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Nvidia Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, agreeing to hear Nvidia’s appeal of a Ninth Circuit ruling that revived shareholders’ fraud claims regarding Nvidia’s...more

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

“Half-Truths,” Not “Pure Omissions”: Supreme Court Limits Section 10(b) Claims Based on Item 303 Nondisclosure to Omissions That...

On April 12, 2024, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., vacating a Second Circuit judgment that had reinstated claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Macquarie Infrastructure v. Moab: Pure Omissions Not Securities Fraud Under Rule 10b-5(b)

On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., unanimously held that pure omissions cannot form the basis of a securities fraud claim under Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

Supreme Court Holds Pure "Omissions" in MD&A Disclosure Cannot Support Liability Under Rule 10b-5

Husch Blackwell LLP on

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that “pure omissions” made in required disclosures do not...more

Jones Day

U.S. Supreme Court Bars Liability for "Pure Omissions" Under Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act

Jones Day on

The United States Supreme Court in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165, ruled that a corporation is not liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 for...more

Carlton Fields

Supreme Court Clarifies That No Private Cause of Action Exists Under Rule 10b-5 for Pure Omissions, Only Uncorrected Half-Truths

Carlton Fields on

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., resolving a circuit split among the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits over whether plaintiffs could pursue...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Supreme Court Narrows Securities Fraud Exposure

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The Supreme Court recently took away an often-used weapon by shareholder plaintiffs in securities fraud cases, ruling that “pure omissions” from periodic SEC filings (absent any other duty to disclose) are not actionable...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules “Pure Omissions” Not Actionable under SEC Rule 10b-5 Even If Disclosure Required by Item 303 of...

A company cannot be sued by private parties under Rule 10b-5(b) for a “pure omission” but can be liable for omissions that render other statements misleading. “Pure omissions” cannot be attacked in private 10b-5(b)...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That “Pure Omissions” Are Not Actionable Under Rule 10b-5

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court delivered an important decision on the issue of whether a failure to make disclosure required under Item 303 of Regulation S-K can support a Rule 10b-5 claim, even in the...more

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Securities Litigation Alert: “Half-Truths,” Not “Pure Omissions”: Supreme Court Limits Section 10(b) Claims Based on Item 303...

On April 12, 2024, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L. P., vacating a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that had reinstated claims...more

Akerman LLP

Supreme Court Holds That Pure Omissions Do Not Support Section 10(b) Claims in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners,...

Akerman LLP on

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court limited an issuer's liability for securities fraud claims based on alleged omissions in SEC filings. The Court's unanimous decision in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. et al v. Moab...more

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Holds Pure Omissions in Item 303 Disclosures Not Actionable under Private Securities Laws

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that pure silence in MD&A statements are not actionable in shareholder securities fraud cases.  The case is important for issuers and shareholders alike for several reasons: -...more

Alston & Bird

Macquarie: High Court Declines to Expand Corporate Liability

Alston & Bird on

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Macquarie v. Moab Partners draws a clear distinction between pure omissions and half-truths. Our Securities Litigation Group explains how the Court resolved a circuit split over public...more

49 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide