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, 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
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
The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions today: Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. 22-1074: This case involves the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine,” set forth in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n,...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
Last week, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Director of Enforcement celebrated a jury verdict in its insider trading case against Matthew Panuwat...more
In the February edition of the Katten Compass, we discuss the SEC’s recent amendments to Rule 10b5-1, which added new conditions to the availability of certain defenses to insider trading liability, as well as imposed new...more
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has unanimously adopted amendments to Rule 10b5-1 (the Rule), which prohibits the purchase or sale of securities on the basis of material nonpublic information (MNPI) in violation...more
Significant parallel actions commenced this week by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) bring crypto fraud enforcement into the spotlight, with the SEC alleging that multiple...more
Everyone knows that employees cannot buy or sell securities while in possession of material nonpublic information. However, when we think about material non-public information, we usually think in terms of information...more
On January 28, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against HeadSpin, Inc., a Silicon Valley start-up....more
Federal courts closed out 2021 with a flurry of securities decisions in the month of December. In this update, we discuss two decisions involving claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule...more
Earlier this week, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed amendments to Exchange Act Rule 10b5-1 that would impose new restrictions and disclosure requirements for (1) trading plans that afford executives...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 Tuesday, the SEC announced that it had filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court charging a former employee of Medivation Inc., an oncology-focused biopharma, with insider trading in advance of Medivation’s announcement...more