Episode 286 -- Matt Stankiewicz on the Ripple Decision and Celsius CEO Indictment
Blue Sky Laws: Defending State-Level Securities Violations
The Justice Insiders: The Administrative State is Not Your Friend - A Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein
Four Decision Points in SEC Securities Investigations
Crypto Enforcement Is Here, and Always Has Been
Cryptocurrency: The Regulator’s Perspective
Investment Management Roundtable Discussion – Regulatory and Enforcement Update
The Nutter Securities Enforcement Update is a periodic update of noteworthy recent securities enforcement activity, settlements, decisions, and charges. We provide brief summaries that highlight recent enforcement action...more
On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6-3 ruling, held that when the Securities Exchange Commission seeks civil monetary penalties from defendants for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment gives...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. The Court held that “pure omissions,” including violations of Item 303 of...more
On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, holding that parties subject to an enforcement action brought by the U.S. Securities and...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in SEC v. Jarkesy that the Seventh Amendment gives defendants the right to a jury trial in federal court in SEC enforcement actions seeking civil penalties for violations of the antifraud...more
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859, 2024 WL 3187811 (U.S. June 27, 2024), the United Stated Supreme Court (Roberts, C.J.) held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) seeks civil...more
Case could signal broad jury rights for defendants in administrative enforcement actions. The Supreme Court struck a major blow to Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement proceedings Thursday, ruling that the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that proving an employer’s retaliatory intent is not required for whistleblowers seeking protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 445 (2024),...more
As seen in the previous article, whistleblowing cases regularly make the news headlines. And while some of the names of the reporters or the cases are well known, it’s worthwhile to take a closer look at the people behind the...more
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
For about 90 years, public companies have devoted significant time and resources toward complying in their public disclosures with Rule 10b-5, a regulation created under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 that prohibits...more
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. that pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b), promulgated by the US Securities...more
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
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split and limited the scope of omissions liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(b). The decision will limit the scope of...more
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
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
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
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
After hearing arguments on January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion on Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al. v. Moab Partners, LP, et al, on April 12, 2024. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to...more
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
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
In Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, No. 22-1165, 2024 WL 1588706 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024) (“MIC”), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held unanimously that “pure omissions” in a Securities and...more
On April 12, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. that material omissions are actionable under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and its enabling SEC Rule 10b-5 only if the...more
On April 12, 2024, the US Supreme Court reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in Macquarie v. Moab Partners and held that a pure omission cannot form the basis of a securities fraud claim under...more
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