Rule 10b-5

Subscribe to Rule 10b-5
Lawrence Fine

As discussed here, in its April 2024 decision in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a failure to disclose information required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K cannot support a private claim under Rule 10b-5 in the absence of an otherwise-misleading statement. The upshot is that so-called “pure omissions” cases are not actionable, meaning that omissions are only actionable if they make an affirmative statement materially misleading. In the following guest post, Larry Fine, Management Liability Coverage Leader for WTW, takes a closer look at the Macquarie decision and considers its implications, particularly with respect to future cases based on alleged omissions. A version of this article was previously published as a WTW client alert. I would like to thank Larry for allowing me to publish this 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 Larry’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: The Additional Pro-Defense Benefits of the Macquarie Decision

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

On April 12, 2023, in a short, unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonja Sotomayor, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a failure to disclose information required under Item 303 of Regulation S-K is, standing alone, not an actionable omission under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Supreme Court said that in the absence of affirmative statement that is rendered misleading by the omission, an Item 303 violation alone is not sufficient to state a claim under Rule 10b-5. As the Supreme Court opinion put it in summarizing its decision, “pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b–5.” The Court’s opinion in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners L.P. can be found here.Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court: Item 303 Omissions Alone Not Actionable

Sarah Eichenberger
Jonathan Rotenberg

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

Bruce Vanyo

Jonathan Rotenberg

As I discussed in a recent post (here), the Ninth Circuit recently reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of the Google+ user data-related securities class action lawsuit. One feature of the decision that perhaps did not attract as much attention is the appellate court’s reversal of district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s scheme liability claims. In the following guest post, Bruce Vanyo and Jonathan Rotenberg discuss the significance of the scheme liability portion of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion. Bruce and Jonathan are partners in the Securities Litigation practice at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, resident in the New York office. I would like to thank Bruce 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 blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Ninth Circuit Invokes Lorenzo to Revive Scheme Liability Claims

Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, a bill intended to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to address insider trading issues. In the following guest post, Partners Brooke Cucinella and Michael Osnato, Counsel Anar Rathod Patel, and Associate Rebecca Sussman, all of the Simpson Thacher law firm, analyze the bill and discuss its implications. A version of this article was previously published as a Simpson Thacher client memorandum. I would like to thank the authors 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 blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Developments in Insider Trading Enforcement: The House Passes the Insider Trading Prohibition Act

In its 2011 decision in the Janus Group case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that one who does not “make” a false statement cannot be held liable under section (b) of Rule 10b-5. In an enforcement action brought against him by the SEC, the defendant, Francis Lorenzo, argued that under the Janus case, he could not be held liable under the securities laws for forwarding a misleading email his boss had written because he did not “make” the false statement. The case ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 27, 2019, the Court found that even if Lorenzo could not be held liable under section (b) of the Rule because he did not “make” the statement, he could still be held liable under the scheme liability provisions in sections (a) and (c) of the Rule for disseminating the  document. The Court’s March 27, 2019 opinion in Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission can be found here.
Continue Reading Supreme Court: Even One Who Did Not “Make” a False Statement May Still be Subject to Scheme Liability