Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: SEC Disclosure Issues for Life Sciences Companies
This edition of Private Company Report highlights critical updates and regulatory changes affecting private companies, including AI liability, sustainability reporting, pregnant worker protections, Delaware law amendments,...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
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
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, 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
Answering a precise question increasingly raised by securities fraud plaintiffs, the United States Supreme Court held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners that a failure to disclose information cannot support a...more
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
The Supreme Court recently issued a significant decision regarding the reach of SEC Rule 10b-5. In Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., the Court addressed whether the failure to disclose information...more
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
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision in the case of Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165. Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that “pure...more
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that, in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement, a failure to disclose information required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K (“Item 303”) does not support a...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. et al v. Moab Partners, L.P., et al. which held that omissions, by themselves, are not subject to private rights...more
In a unanimous decision issued on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a corporation’s failure to disclose information regarding known trends or uncertainties, required by SEC regulation, cannot be the basis for private...more
On April 12, in a long-awaited and pivotal decision, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that private plaintiffs may not plead a federal securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934...more
SEC Rule 10b-5(b) makes it unlawful for issuers to make false statements or “to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made...not misleading.” In addition to ensuring the truth of statements,...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation v. Moab Partners, L.P., held that omissions of supposedly material information allegedly required to be disclosed under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K...more
In a narrow but potentially significant decision, the Supreme Court has held that securities-fraud plaintiffs cannot recover based on a “pure omission” from a company’s public statements under the most common legal basis for...more
On April 12, a unanimous Supreme Court held that issuers are not liable under Rule 10b-5(b) for “pure omissions.” The Court’s decision ends a long-standing circuit split and, most importantly for public companies, narrows the...more