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 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, 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, 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 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, 2024, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which held that Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 permitted a...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
In Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165, 601 U.S. ___ (April 12, 2024), the United States Supreme Court held that “pure omissions are not actionable” for securities fraud asserted specifically...more
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165, 601 U.S. __ (Apr. 12, 2024), in which the Court held that pure omissions are not actionable...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
In a blow to the plaintiffs’ securities bar, the US Supreme Court in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners unanimously held that a “pure omission”—the failure to disclose information in the absence of an inaccurate,...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. et al. v. Moab Partners L.P. et al., holding that an omission to make disclosures required by U.S. Securities and Exchange...more
On August 18, 2022, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granting a motion to dismiss a...more
Takeaway: To ensure investor safety and emphasize a commitment to user privacy, corporate executives and similarly-situated high ranking officers must not provide any statements or omissions that affirmatively create a...more
On November 24, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a pair of decisions addressing threshold requirements for securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and...more
On August 14, 2020, United States District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against a Chinese internet company (the “Company”) and its co-founders and a director under...more
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed a case brought by the SEC against an individual broker accused of violations of Section 17(A) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act...more
On January 30, 2018, Judge John R. Tunheim of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted class certification in a consolidated securities fraud class action against Medtronic and certain of its...more
In City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System v. Align Technology, Inc. (Dearborn), the Ninth Circuit established additional requirements for pleading securities fraud claims based on statements of...more