On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Leidos
Inc., f/k/a SAIC Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System, a
securities fraud class action. The case will resolve a circuit
split over whether a failure to disclose under Item 303 of SEC
Regulation S-K can give rise to a claim under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
Investor plaintiffs brought a putative class action against
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), now known as
Leidos. Plaintiffs alleged that SAIC failed to disclose in March of
2011 that it had potential liability exposure as a result of a
criminal kickback scheme concerning business with the New York City
government. SAIC first disclosed the issue in June 2011, after the
City formally requested repayment. Nine months later, SAIC settled
with the City for $500 million.
Item 303, among other things, requires companies to
"[d]escribe any known trends or uncertainties that have had or
that the registrant reasonably expects will have a material
favorable or unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues or income
from continuing operations." As one of their arguments,
plaintiffs contended that SAIC knew of the City's allegations
and the alleged scheme well before June 2011, and that the criminal
investigation alone was an uncertainty that SAIC reasonably
expected would have a material and unfavorable impact and that
should have been disclosed under Item 303.
In separate decisions in September 2013 and January 2014, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
all of plaintiffs' claims, reasoning that plaintiffs'
pleading was essentially a "hindsight pleading." The
district court further denied plaintiffs' motions for relief
from judgment, reasoning that any amendment to include the Item 303
claims based on the March 2011 omissions would be futile.
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal, with the
exception of the claims asserting that SAIC omitted disclosures
required under Item 303, finding that the District Court erred in
its futility determination. Citing its own precedent, the panel
stated, "[i]n Stratte‐McClure, we held
that Item 303 imposes an affirmative duty to disclose . . . [that]
can serve as the basis for a securities fraud claim under Section
10(b)" and that "failure to comply with Item 303 . . .
can give rise to liability under Rule 10b–5 so long as the
omission is material..." (internal quotations omitted).
The Second Circuit's position on this point reflects a
circuit split on the issue. The Second Circuit held that a
non-disclosure under Item 303 may, under some circumstances, give
rise to private securities fraud liability. The Third and Ninth
Circuits hold that it may not.
The Ninth Circuit, in the case of In re NVIDIA Corp.
Securities Litigation, and the Third Circuit in Oran v.
Stafford, have taken the position that a violation of Item 303
disclosure requirements does not lead inevitably to the conclusion
that such a disclosure would be required under Rule 10b-5; instead,
a duty must be separately shown. The Third and Ninth Circuit
reasoned that because materiality under the securities laws
differed from materiality under Item 303, a violation of the latter
is not a violation of the former.
This circuit split will soon be resolved by the Supreme Court,
presumably in 2018.
Leidos Inc., fka SAIC Inc., v. Indiana Public Retirement
System et al., No. 14-4140 (2nd Cir. Apr. 13, 2016), cert. granted No. 16-581 (U.S. Mar.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The California Supreme Court recently held in City of San Jose v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court Case No. S218066, that public employees' digital messages existing in private electronic devices...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).