ARTICLE
19 September 2024

Second Circuit Dismisses Rule 10b-5 Claims Based On Pure Omissions Theory Following Remand From The United States Supreme Court

AO
A&O Shearman

Contributor

A&O Shearman was formed in 2024 via the merger of two historic firms, Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling. With nearly 4,000 lawyers globally, we are equally fluent in English law, U.S. law and the laws of the world’s most dynamic markets. This combination creates a new kind of law firm, one built to achieve unparalleled outcomes for our clients on their most complex, multijurisdictional matters – everywhere in the world. A firm that advises at the forefront of the forces changing the current of global business and that is unrivalled in its global strength. Our clients benefit from the collective experience of teams who work with many of the world’s most influential companies and institutions, and have a history of precedent-setting innovations. Together our lawyers advise more than a third of NYSE-listed businesses, a fifth of the NASDAQ and a notable proportion of the London Stock Exchange, the Euronext, Euronext Paris and the Tokyo and Hong Kong Stock Exchanges.
On August 19, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, putative class action claims brought under Section 10(b) ...
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

On August 19, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, putative class action claims brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 because they were based on a "pure omissions" theory. Moab Partners, L.P., v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., No. 21-2524, 2024 WL 3867669 (2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2024). As addressed in our prior post, the Supreme Court held that, contrary to prior authority in the Second Circuit, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder do not impose an affirmative duty to disclose information but rather only require information to be disclosed if necessary to make other statements clear and complete.

The case involves whether a company operating a portfolio of infrastructure‑related businesses needed to disclose that a proposed regulation by a United Nations agency would negatively impact the company's subsidiary by restricting the use of a particular fuel oil. Plaintiffs contended that disclosure was required under Item 303 of Regulation S-K (the "pure omissions" theory) and also that disclosure was required after the company chose to make general statements regarding "changes in government regulations" and "capital expenditures" related to repurposing oil tanks (the "half-truths" theory). The Second Circuit originally held that the allegation based on a "pure omissions" theory could support a claim under Rule 10b-5, and it also declined to dismiss certain other Exchange Act claims—including those based on the "half-truths" theory—and claims under the Securities Act of 1933.

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit invited the parties to submit supplemental briefing and then dismissed the Rule 10b-5 claim brought under the "pure omissions" theory, while concluding that the Supreme Court's decision did not otherwise disturb the prior decision holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged their various other claims.

Moab Partners, L.P., v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corp

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More