News & Analysis as of

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Regulation S-K

Troutman Pepper Locke

SEC Clarifies Disclosure Requirements for Crypto Asset Securities

Troutman Pepper Locke on

On April 10, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance (the Division) issued a statement aimed at providing greater clarity on the application of federal securities laws to crypto assets....more

DLA Piper

Corp Fin Releases New Guidance on Clawback Disclosure Requirements

DLA Piper on

The staff of the Division of Corporation Finance (Corp Fin) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the clawback disclosures required in an...more

Mayer Brown Free Writings + Perspectives

New Corp Fin CDIs on Clawbacks and De-SPAC Co-Registrants

On April 11, 2025, the staff (the “Staff”) of the U.S. Securities Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance (the “Division”) issued seven new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“CDIs”), the third update to the CDIs...more

Seward & Kissel LLP

SEC Expands Accommodations for Nonpublic Review of Most Securities Act and Exchange Act Registration Statements

Seward & Kissel LLP on

On March 3, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) expanded the accommodations for the confidential submission and review of registration statements under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) or...more

DLA Piper

Reminders and New Disclosure Requirements for the 2025 Proxy Season

DLA Piper on

The proxy statement has become an integral component of a public company’s preparation for its annual meeting of shareholders. The rules and regulations under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act),...more

A&O Shearman

Southern District Of New York Dismisses Putative Class Action Against Technology Company For Failure To Adequately Allege...

A&O Shearman on

On March 19, 2025, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934...more

Mayer Brown

What’s the Deal? – Rule 10b5-1 Plans

Mayer Brown on

Here’s the deal: A Rule 10b5‐1 plan is a written securities trading plan that is designed to comply with Rule 10b5‐1(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)....more

Snell & Wilmer

Summer 2024 Corporate Communicator

Snell & Wilmer on

On March 6, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted final climate disclosure rules (the “Final Rules”)1 to take effect as early as the beginning of the 2025 fiscal year. On April 4, 2024, the SEC...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

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

Supreme Court Ruling Resolves Split Regarding Failure to Disclose and Securities Fraud Claims

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously resolved a circuit split on the issue of whether a failure to disclose information under Item 303 of Regulation S-K (the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s...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

Carlton Fields

Supreme Court Clarifies That No Private Cause of Action Exists Under Rule 10b-5 for Pure Omissions, Only Uncorrected Half-Truths

Carlton Fields on

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

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

K&L Gates LLP

Supreme Court Limits Shareholder Suits based on "Pure Omissions" in Corporate Disclosures

K&L Gates LLP on

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

Troutman Pepper Locke

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

Troutman Pepper Locke 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

42 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