SkadBytes Podcast | Tech’s Shifting Landscape: Five Trends Shaping the Conversation
From Banks to FinTech: The Evolution of Small Business Lending — The Consumer Finance Podcast
From Banks to FinTech: The Evolution of Small Business Lending — Payments Pros – The Payments Law Podcast
Podcast - Navigating the Updated SF-328 Form
Five Tips for a New Public Company Director
Doc Fees Decoded: The Price of Paperwork in Auto Sales — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Gag Clause Prohibitions
Episode 371 -- DOJ's New Corporate Enforcement Program
Podcast - New Guidance on Complying with FTC Rule on Deceptive and Unfair Fees
Welcoming a New Payment Pro: Jason Cover Joins the Payments Pros Podcast — Payments Pros – The Payments Law Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: Influencer Fail – ALO Yoga & Influencers Named in $150M Class Action Lawsuit for FTC Violations
The Briefing: Influencer Fail – ALO Yoga & Influencers Named in $150M Class Action Lawsuit for FTC Violations
Compliance into the Weeds: Leaving on a (Qatari) Jet Plane
LEGAL ALERT | NAD Finds Kevin Hart’s Social Media Disclosures Insufficient in Monitoring Decisions
Choosing Your LDA Reporting Path for 2025
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 305: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 2 – Discovery)
Compliance Tip of the Day: Clarifying Compliance Mandates
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: How to Use the Restatement of Consumer Contracts - A Guide for Judges
Compliance Tip of the Day: Corporate Leaks and Compliance
Greenhushing: What It Is & Why It Matters
On June 10, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Pino v. Cardone Capital, LLC reversed in part the dismissal of claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933 based on statements made in connection with two...more
On June 10, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a securities class action after finding the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a real estate investment fund and its managing executive...more
We previously wrote about conflicting decisions from New York federal courts on whether alleged economic damages establish Article III standing under a price premium theory in baby food toxic metals class actions. See New...more
On April 12, 2024, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., vacating a Second Circuit judgment that had reinstated claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities...more
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. that pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b), promulgated by the US Securities...more
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
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split and limited the scope of omissions liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(b). The decision will limit the scope of...more
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
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
After hearing arguments on January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion on Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al. v. Moab Partners, LP, et al, on April 12, 2024. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to...more
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
In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court held that pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Rather, the Court found that Rule 10b–5(b) prohibits half-truths, not...more
In Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, No. 22-1165, 2024 WL 1588706 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024) (“MIC”), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held unanimously that “pure omissions” in a Securities and...more
On April 12, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. that material omissions are actionable under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and its enabling SEC Rule 10b-5 only if the...more
On April 12, 2024, the US Supreme Court reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in Macquarie v. Moab Partners and held that a pure omission cannot form the basis of a securities fraud claim under...more
Answering a precise question increasingly raised by securities fraud plaintiffs, the United States Supreme Court held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners that a failure to disclose information cannot support a...more
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
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
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that, in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement, a failure to disclose information required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K (“Item 303”) does not support a...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. et al v. Moab Partners, L.P., et al. which held that omissions, by themselves, are not subject to private rights...more
In a unanimous decision issued on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a corporation’s failure to disclose information regarding known trends or uncertainties, required by SEC regulation, cannot be the basis for private...more
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
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
In a narrow but potentially significant decision, the Supreme Court has held that securities-fraud plaintiffs cannot recover based on a “pure omission” from a company’s public statements under the most common legal basis for...more