News & Analysis as of

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Omissions Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

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

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

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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

SCOTUS Ruling: Pure Omissions Are Not Actionable Under Rule 10b-5

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

Troutman Pepper

US Supreme Court Limits Scope of Omission Liability for Section 10(b) Securities Fraud Claims

Troutman Pepper on

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

BCLP

The Supreme Court Rejects “Pure Omissions” Liability under Section 10(b)

BCLP on

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

BakerHostetler

The U.S. Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split, Holds That Pure Omissions Are Not Actionable in Securities Fraud Cases

BakerHostetler on

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

Mintz

Supreme Court Narrows the Reach of Omission Liability Claims Under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act

Mintz on

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

Proskauer - Corporate Defense and Disputes

Supreme Court Holds That Securities Fraud Statute Does Not Proscribe Pure Omissions

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

A&O Shearman

California District Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Investor Class Action Against Lithium-Ion Battery Company

A&O Shearman on

On January 30, 2024, Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted with leave to amend a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a battery company...more

Carr Maloney P.C.

Supreme Court Evaluates Private Cause of Action for Allegedly Lying by Omission

Carr Maloney P.C. on

On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Case Number 22-1165, Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al. v. Moab Partners, L.P., et al. Before the Court was whether a “failure to make a disclosure under...more

White & Case LLP

The SEC’s Charges Against SolarWinds and its Chief Information Security Officer Provide Important Cybersecurity Lessons for Public...

White & Case LLP on

On October 30, 2023, the US Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") announced that it filed charges against SolarWinds Corp. ("SolarWinds" or the "Company") and its Chief Information Security Officer ("CISO") in connection...more

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

SEC Complaint Signals Aggressive Approach to Information Barriers Enforcement

On September 12, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) charging a large proprietary trading firm with making materially false and misleading statements and...more

Freiberger Haber LLP

Securities Act Claims Dismissed as Time-Barred and Otherwise Insufficient

Freiberger Haber LLP on

On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, in which it unanimously held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 does not strip state...more

A&O Shearman

Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Putative Class Action Under Section 14(a) For Failure To Adequately Allege Material Omissions...

A&O Shearman on

On June 1, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment dismissing claims under Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a financial company and...more

Proskauer - Corporate Defense and Disputes

Supreme Court Requires Traceability for Securities Act Claims Arising from Direct Listings

The U.S. Supreme Court held that purchasers of shares sold to the public through a direct listing cannot sue under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 unless they can trace their shares to an allegedly defective...more

A&O Shearman

Southern District Of New York Grants Summary Judgment To Pharmaceutical Company In Investor Class Action

A&O Shearman on

On December 12, 2022, Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to a major pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and dismissed class action...more

A&O Shearman

Second Circuit Rejects SEC Request To Revisit Holding That “Scheme Liability” Requires Conduct Beyond Misstatements And Omissions

A&O Shearman on

On July 15, 2022, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in an interlocutory appeal the SEC had brought seeking to expand the scope of...more

34 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