On August 8, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’s dismissal of a putative securities class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b)...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
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., resolving a circuit split among the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits over whether plaintiffs could pursue...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 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
On April 12, 2024, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L. P., vacating a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that had reinstated claims...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 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
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 21, 2023, Judge Paul A. Crotty of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion for reconsideration of his denial of an earlier motion to dismiss a putative securities class...more
On July 10, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a consolidated putative class action alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the...more
Last week, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought five insider-trading cases against a slew of individuals. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York also announced parallel criminal...more
On December 14, 2022, the SEC adopted amendments to Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and added related new disclosure requirements. Rule 10b5-1 provides an affirmative defense to insider trading liability...more
Recently Adopted Rules - Pay-Versus-Performance Disclosure Rules. New Item 402(v) of Regulation S-K (“Item 402(v)”), which sets forth the new pay-versus-performance disclosure rules (the “PVP Rules”), became effective on...more
On December 14, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments to Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and new disclosure requirements to enhance investor protections against insider trading....more
Overview - On 14 December 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) adopted amendments to Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 addressing concerns that insiders and issuers have in the past been...more