As I have noted in recent posts (most recently, for example, here), the proliferation of AI in many industries is changing the way business gets done. According to a new study, AI could also be changing the language companies use to report to regulators and to communicate with their investors, in ways that potentially could increase the companies’ securities class action litigation exposure.Continue Reading Tone Portrait: Artificial Intelligence and MD&A
As I noted in a post at the time, last Fall, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation v. Moab Partners, L.P. case agreed to take up the question of whether whether the failure to make disclosure required by Item 303 of Reg. S-K is an actionable omission under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. In January, the Court heard oral argument in the case. In the following guest post, Sarah Eichenberger and Jonathan Rotenberg, Partners in the Securities Litigation practice at the Katten law firm, discuss the questions the Justices as asked the oral argument and assess the possible outcomes of the case, as well as the potential significance of the outcomes. I would like to thank Sarah and Jonathan for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Sarah and Jonathan’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Supreme Court Considers Whether Pure Omissions Can Support Section 10(b) Liability
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case in which the court will be asked to address the recurring question of whether the failure to make disclosure required by Item 303 of Reg. S-K is an actionable omission under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The Court apparently agreed to take up the case due to a split between the Circuits on the question of whether or not an Item 303 violation can be actionable. Because allegations based on alleged Item 303 violations are a frequent feature of securities class action complaints, the Court’s ruling in the case could potentially be significant. A copy of the Court’s September 29, 2023, order granting the petitioners’ petition for a writ of certiorari in the cases, Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation v. Moab Partners, L.P., can be found here.Continue Reading Supreme Court to Consider Whether Item 303 Violations are Actionable under Section 10(b)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case that will address a recurring issue that has arisen in the securities class action litigation arena – that is, whether or not the alleged failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Reg. S-K is an actionable omission under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. A circuit split has emerged on this issue, with the Second Circuit holding that Item 303 does create an actionable duty of disclosure, while the Ninth and Third Circuits have held that it does not. The Court’s grant of the writ of certiorari in the case of Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System will afford the Court an opportunity to resolve the circuit split and to address the question of whether Item 303 creates an actionable disclosure duty. The U.S. Supreme Court’s March 27, 2017 order granting the writ of certiorari can be found here.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Item 303 Creates Actionable Disclosure Duty
One of the more interesting issues that has emerged recently in the securities litigation arena is the question of whether or not the alleged failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Reg. S-K is an actionable omission under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The Ninth Circuit, in its October 2014 decision in
On January 12, 2015, the Second Circuit ruled, “as a matter of first impression” for the appellate court, that a failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Reg. S-K is an omission that can serve as a basis for a Section 10(b) securities fraud claim, but only if the other requirements to
A recurring question arising in class action securities litigation is what constitutes a “corrective disclosure” for purposes of satisfying the requirements for pleading loss causation. In the Amedisys securities class action litigation, the district court had examined the five partial disclosures on which the plaintiff sought to rely to establish loss causation and held