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 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 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
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 a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court held that pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Rather, the Court found that Rule 10b–5(b) prohibits half-truths, not...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 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
The United States Supreme Court held that pure omissions, standing alone, are not actionable in private civil litigation under Rule 10b-5(b), which makes it unlawful to omit material facts in connection with buying or selling...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
The U.S. Supreme Court has now resolved the split in lower courts, discussed in our March 14, 2024 post, over whether plaintiffs may bring a securities fraud claim based solely on a corporation’s omission from public filings...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
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the anti-fraud provision of the Securities Exchange Act does not prohibit “pure omissions,” but only false statements or misleading half-truths. The unanimous decision in Macquarie...more
On August 23, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit unanimously reversed the dismissal of a putative securities class action against an online education company (the “Company”), alleging violations of...more
On October 18, 2019, Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under...more
On June 18, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Leidos v. Indiana Public Retirement System, a securities case that raised important and unsettled issues about the scope of liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities...more
Resolution of whether Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K creates an affirmative duty to disclose and a private right of enforcement under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 will have to wait. On...more
In less than a month, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System (Docket No. 16-581). The question presented in Leidos is...more
The U.S. Supreme Court‘s 2017 term begins October 2nd and we will be tracking at least three cases relevant to institutional investors: •Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund •Digital Realty Trust v....more