The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
Turning up the Heat – A Look at the FTC’s Groundbreaking Fine Against Bankrupt Digital Asset Services Provider Celsius Network LLC - The Crypto Exchange Podcast
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
Business and Legal Issues Around Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies
The "Compass Rose" Method for Corporate Witness Interviews
Podcast: Credit Funds: Compliance Considerations for Valuation
Life Sciences Quarterly (Q3 2019): SEC Enforcement and Class Actions Regarding FDA Communications
Insider Trading News - Ralph Siciliano discusses US v. Newman
SEC Whistleblower Program: What Employers Need to Know
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 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, 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
On Friday, 12 April 2024, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a corporation’s failure to disclose certain information about its future business risks, without more, cannot form the basis of a 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
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court took a significant step to curb securities fraud suits based on alleged omissions in SEC filings. The Supreme Court held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation v. Moab Partners, L.P....more
As we close out 2023 and begin the first quarter of 2024, securities and derivative litigation continues to evolve. In this quarterly update, we examine trends in federal securities class action filings, which saw an uptick...more
On September 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on the validity of a familiar allegation in private securities litigation—that a failure to disclose under Item 303 of Regulation S-K (“Item 303”) supports a...more
Securities lawyers are familiar with Item 303 of Regulation S-K, which calls for companies to disclose in the Management Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) section of an annual report “known trends or uncertainties that have...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
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
On March 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Leidos v. Indiana Public Retirement System, et al., No. 16-581, and agreed to review the Second Circuit’s decision that Item 303 of SEC...more
On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Leidos Inc., f/k/a SAIC Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System, a securities fraud class action. The case will resolve a circuit split over whether a...more
On March 27, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a circuit split on whether corporate issuers’ disclosure obligation under Item 303 of S.E.C. Regulation S-K can be an...more
On March 27, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a circuit split on whether corporate issuers’ disclosure obligation under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K can be an...more
The U.S. Supreme Court will resolve a critical question governing the scope of liability in securities fraud cases which has split the circuit courts to date. The case, Leidos Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System, No....more