U.S. Supreme Court, Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., Docket No. 22-1165

Securities

 

Securities Fraud Claim

 

Duty to Disclose

 

Pure Omissions

 

Private Action Under Rule 10b–5(b)

 

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

Circuit Split

 

 

 

 

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b–5(b) makes it unlawful to omit material facts in connection with buying or selling securities when that omission renders “statements made” misleading. Separately, Item 303 of SEC Regulation S–K requires companies to disclose certain information in periodic filings with the SEC. The question in this case is whether the failure to disclose information required by Item 303 can support a private action under Rule 10b–5(b), even if the failure does not render any “statements made” misleading. The Court holds that it cannot. Pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b–5(b).

 

 

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 makes it “unlawful for any person . . . to use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . ., any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the SEC may prescribe.” 48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. §78j(b). Rule 10b–5 implements this prohibition and makes it unlawful for issuers of registered securities to “make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.” 17 CFR §240.10b–5(b) (2022). This Court “has found a right of action implied in the words of §10(b) and its implementing regulation.” Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U. S. 148, 157 (2008).

 

 

Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act requires issuers to file periodic informational statements. See 15 U. S. C. §§78m(a)(1), 78l(b)(1). These statements include the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operation” (MD&A), in which companies must “furnish the information required by Item 303 of Regulation S–K.” See SEC Form 10–K; SEC Form 10–Q. Item 303, in turn, requires companies to “describe any known trends or uncertainties that have had or that are reasonably likely to have a material favorable or unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing operations.” 17 CFR §229.303(b)(2)(ii) (2022).

 

 

(…) The courts of appeals disagree on whether a failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 can support a private claim under §10(b) and Rule 10b–5(b) in the absence of an otherwise-misleading statement.1 This Court granted certiorari to resolve that disagreement. 600 U. S. ___ (2023).

 

 

1 Compare Stratte-McClure v. Morgan Stanley, 776 F. 3d 94, 101 (CA2 2015) (“Item 303’s affirmative duty to disclose in Form 10–Qs can serve as the basis for a securities fraud claim under Section 10(b)”), with In re Nvidia, 768 F. 3d 1046, 1056 (CA9 2014) (“Item 303 does not create a duty to disclose for purposes of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b–5”); see also Oran v. Stafford, 226 F. 3d 275, 288 (CA3 2000) (“The ‘demonstration of a violation of the disclosure requirements of Item 303 does not lead inevitably to the conclusion that such disclosure would be required under Rule 10b–5. Such a duty to disclose must be separately shown’”).

 

 

Rule 10b–5(b) makes it unlawful “to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.” 17 CFR §240.10b–5(b). This Rule accomplishes two things. It prohibits “any untrue statement of a material fact”—i.e., false statements or lies. Ibid. It also prohibits omitting a material fact necessary “to make the statements made . . . not misleading.” Ibid. This case turns on whether this second prohibition bars only half-truths or instead extends to pure omissions.

A pure omission occurs when a speaker says nothing, in circumstances that do not give any particular meaning to that silence.

 

 

Rule 10b–5(b) does not proscribe pure omissions. The Rule prohibits omitting material facts necessary to make the “statements made . . . not misleading.” Put differently, it requires disclosure of information necessary to ensure that statements already made are clear and complete (…). This Rule therefore covers half-truths, not pure omissions. Logically and by its plain text, the Rule requires identifying affirmative assertions (i.e., “statements made”) before determining if other facts are needed to make those statements “not misleading.”

 

 

(…) It once again “bears emphasis that §10(b) and Rule 10b–5(b) do not create an affirmative duty to disclose any and all material information.

Disclosure is required under these provisions only when necessary ‘to make . . . statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.’” Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U. S. 27, 44 (2011) (quoting Rule 10b–5(b)).

 

 

Statutory context confirms what the text plainly provides. Congress imposed liability for pure omissions in §11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. Section 11(a) prohibits any registration statement that “contains an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading.” 15 U. S. C. §77k(a). By its terms, in addition to proscribing lies and half-truths, this section also creates liability for failure to speak on a subject at all. See Omnicare, 575 U. S., at 186, n. 3 (“Section 11’s omissions clause also applies when an issuer fails to make mandated disclosures—those ‘required to be stated’—in a registration statement”). There is no similar language in §10(b) or Rule 10b–5(b). Cf. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 208 (1976).

 

 

“Silence, absent a duty to disclose, is not misleading under Rule 10b–5.” Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U. S. 224, 239, n. 17 (1988). Even a duty to disclose, however, does not automatically render silence misleading under Rule 10b–5(b). Today, this Court confirms that the failure to disclose information required by Item 303 can support a Rule 10b–5(b) claim only if the omission renders affirmative statements made misleading.

(Fn. 2: Moab and the United States spill much ink fighting the question presented, insisting that this case is about half-truths rather than pure omissions. The Court granted certiorari to address the Second Circuit’s pure omission analysis, not its half-truth analysis. See Pet. for Cert. I (“Whether . . . a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 can support a private claim under Section 10(b), even in the absence of an otherwise-misleading statement”); see also 2022 WL 17815767, *1 (Dec. 20, 2022) (distinguishing between these “two circumstances”). The Court does not opine on issues that are either tangential to the question presented or were not passed upon below, including what constitutes “statements made,” when a statement is misleading as a half-truth, or whether Rules 10b–5(a) and 10b–5(c) support liability for pure omissions.) 

 

 

 

 

 

(U.S. Supreme Court, April 12, 2024, Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., Docket No. 22-1165, J. Sotomayor, Unanimous)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Weston Family Partnership LLP v. Twitter, Inc., Docket No. 20-17465

SEC

 

Disclosure (Scope of)

 

Duty to Disclose

 

Misleading Statements

Exchange Act’s Safe Harbor Provision for Forward-Looking Statements

Securities Law

 

Securities Fraud Lawsuit

 

Twitter

 

 

 

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a securities fraud lawsuit under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, alleging that Twitter, Inc., misled investors by hiding the scope of software bugs customization. Twitter shares users’ cell phone location data with companies that pay more for ads tailored to certain users, but it permits users to opt out of such data-sharing. In May 2019, Twitter announced that it had discovered software bugs that caused sharing of cell phone location data of its users, but it told its users that it had fixed the problems. In August 2019, Twitter announced that it had again accidentally shared user data with advertisers, even for those who had opted out, but it had “fixed these issues.” Twitter had not resolved the software bugs, but instead had stopped sharing user data altogether for its Mobile App Promotion advertising program, resulting in a drop in revenue. In October 2019, Twitter disclosed the software bugs and reported a revenue shortfall, and its share price dropped.

 

The panel held that plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a claim under § 10(b) because Twitter’s statements were not false or materially misleading. The panel held that the securities laws do not require real-time business updates or complete disclosure of all material information whenever a company speaks on a particular topic. To the contrary, a company can speak selectively about its business so long as its statements do not paint a misleading picture. The panel held that Twitter’s statements about its advertising program were not false or misleading because they were qualified and factually true, and the company had no duty to disclose more than it did under federal securities law. Specifically, securities laws did not require Twitter to provide real-time updates about the progress of its Mobile App Promotion program. Further, plaintiffs did not plausibly or with particularity allege that the software bugs disclosed in August had materialized and affected revenue in July. In addition, Twitter’s July 2019 statements fell within the Exchange Act’s safe harbor provision for forward-looking statements.

 

When Twitter said that it had “fixed these issues,” it did not mean resolving the software bugs, which proved to be difficult. Rather, Twitter had stopped sharing user data for its MAP advertising program altogether. This meant no data- sharing for all users and thus also less revenue from MAP. Twitter did not disclose these facts at that time.

 

(…) Finally, about 11 weeks later on October 24, Twitter in its quarterly earnings report disclosed the software bugs hampering MAP and reported a $25 million revenue shortfall. In response to this news, some analysts downgraded the stock and the share price dropped over 20%.

 

Plaintiffs allege that these statements were false or materially misleading:

(1) Twitter’s July 26, 2019 shareholder letter and July 31, 2019 Form 10-Q stated the company is “continuing its work to increase the stability, performance, and flexibility of its ads platform and MAP,” but that it is “not there yet” and that this work will “take place over multiple quarters, with a gradual impact on revenue.” Segal added that the company is “still in the middle of that work” relating to MAP improvements, and that it is “still at the state where he believes that you would see its impact be gradual in nature.” Plaintiffs allege that these statements are false because the defendants did not disclose the software bugs allegedly plaguing MAP then and suggested that MAP was on track.

 

(2) The Form 10-Q also contained warnings that the company’s products and services “may contain undetected software errors, which could harm its business and operating results.” Plaintiffs claim that this statement is misleading because Twitter supposedly knew by this time that “software errors” would—not just “may”—harm the bottom line.

(3) Because of the allegedly false or misleading statements in the 10-Q filing, Twitter’s Sarbanes- Oxley (SOX) certifications signed by Dorsey and Segal were also false or misleading.

(4) On August 6, 2019, the company issued a tweet that stated: “We recently discovered and fixed issues related to your settings choices for the way we deliver personalized ads, and when we share certain data with trusted management and advertising partners,” and Twitter’s Help Center claimed that it “fixed these issues on August 5, 2019.” Plaintiffs assert that this statement misleadingly suggested Twitter had solved the software bugs, not just the privacy leak.

(5) On September 4, 2019 at an investor conference, Segal stated that the company’s “MAP work is ongoing” and that Twitter “continued to sell the existing MAP product.” Plaintiffs again claim that Twitter failed to disclose the scope of the software bugs hindering MAP.

(6) At the same conference, Segal stated that “Asia . . . has tended to be more MAP-focused historically.” This statement, according to Plaintiffs, glossed over MAP’s software bugs.

 

II. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim Under Section 10(b) Because Twitter’s Statements Are Not False or Materially Misleading.

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful:

To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the SEC may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). The SEC, in turn, issued Rule 10b-5, which declares it unlawful:

(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.

To state a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, the complaint must plausibly allege: “(1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation. Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258, 267 (2014) (citations omitted).

For a statement to be false or misleading, it must “directly contradict what the defendant knew at that time” or “omit material information.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 1008–09 (9th Cir. 2018); see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1)(A)–(B).

Plaintiffs must also overcome several hurdles to successfully plead a claim under Section 10(b). First, under the PSLRA’s particularity requirements and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), allegations of “fraud must be accompanied by the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged.” Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up); see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1). Second, an allegedly misleading statement must be “capable of objective verification.” Or. Pub. Emps. Ret. Fund v. Apollo Grp. Inc., 774 F.3d 598, 606 (9th Cir. 2014). For example, “puffing”—expressing an opinion rather than a knowingly false statement of fact—is not misleading. Id.; see also Lloyd v. CVB Fin. Corp., 811 F.3d 1200, 1206–07 (9th Cir. 2016). Third, a statement is not actionable just because it is incomplete. In re Vantive Corp. Sec. Litig., 283 F.3d 1079, 1085 (9th Cir. 2002). Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) “do not create an affirmative duty to disclose any and all material information. Disclosure is required . . . only when necessary ‘to make . . . statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.’” Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27, 44 (2011) (quoting 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b)). 

Finally, even if a statement is objectively false or misleading, the PSLRA provides a “safe harbor” for forward-looking statements if such statements are either identified as forward-looking and accompanied by a meaningful cautionary statement, or if the plaintiff fails to show that the statement was made with actual knowledge that it was false or misleading. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1); see also In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010).

 

A. Securities laws do not require Twitter to provide real-time updates about the progress of its MAP program.

Plaintiffs suggest that Twitter—when faced with a setback in dealing with software bugs plaguing its MAP program—had a legal duty to disclose it to the investing public. Not so. While society may have become accustomed to being instantly in the loop about the latest news (thanks in part to Twitter), our securities laws do not impose a similar requirement. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 “do not create an affirmative duty to disclose any and all material information.” Matrixx, 563 U.S. at 44.

Put another way, companies do not have an obligation to offer an instantaneous update of every internal development, especially when it involves the oft-tortuous path of product development. See Vantive, 283 F.3d at 1085 (“If the challenged statement is not false or misleading, it does not become actionable merely because it is incomplete.”). Indeed, to do so would inject instability into the securities market, as stocks may wildly gyrate based on even fleeting developments. A company must disclose a negative internal development only if its omission would make other statements materially misleading. Matrixx, 563 U.S. at 45 (“Even with respect to information that a reasonable investor might consider material, companies can control what they have to disclose under these provisions by controlling what they say to the market.”).

Plaintiffs argue that Twitter’s failure to disclose the software bugs’ impact on MAP in July 2019 was materially misleading because its prior statements had allegedly left a “misimpression” that the work to improve MAP was “on track.” But a closer examination of the statements reveals a much more qualified and less definitive characterization of the MAP program. For example, the July 2019 shareholder letter and 10-Q stated that Twitter is “continuing its work to increase the stability, performance, and flexibility of its ads platform and MAP. . . but we’re not there yet.” Similarly, the CFO explained that the company is “still in the middle of that work” relating to MAP. And later in September of that same year, the CFO again reiterated that the “MAP work is ongoing.”

None of these statements suggests that Twitter’s MAP program was “on track.” Rather, they suggest a vaguely optimistic assessment that MAP, like almost all product developments, has had its ups and downs, even as the company continues to make progress. Perhaps if Twitter had set a specific deadline or revenue impact for MAP, its somewhat optimistic statements could seem like an implied affirmation of that target. But Twitter never made such specific or unqualified guidance. And with no such guidance, Twitter’s statements are so imprecise and noncommittal that they are incapable of objective verification. See Apollo, 774 F.3d at 606 (distinguishing non-actionable vague puffery from statements capable of objective verification); In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d at 1111 (“Mildly optimistic, subjective assessment hardly amounts to a securities violation.”). Nor can it be said that the company “touted positive information to the market” such that it “became bound to do so in a manner that wouldn’t mislead investors, including disclosing adverse information that cuts against the positive information.” Khoja, 899 F.3d at 1009.

In short, Twitter had no legal duty to disclose immediately the software bugs in its MAP program, especially given that its earlier statements about MAP’s progress were qualified and vague.

(…) Even then, an express statement of the company being “on track” to meet a target would likely be protected as a forward-looking statement under the safe harbor provision of the PSLRA. Wochos v. Tesla, Inc., 985 F.3d 1180, 1192 (9th Cir. 2021). (Fn. 4).

(…) But Twitter’s August 6 Help Center blog post said no such thing. The context makes clear that Twitter had “fixed” the inadvertent data-sharing; there is no mention of software bugs, let alone ridding of them. See Retail Wholesale & Dep’t Store Union Local 338 Ret. Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 845 F.3d 1268, 1278 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A duty to provide information exists only where statements were made which were misleading in light of the context surrounding the statements.” (emphasis added)). The blog post starts off by noting that Twitter wants “to give you control over your data” but that it had “recently found issues” of inadvertent data-sharing. The post then states: “We fixed these issues on August 5, 2019. We know you will want to know if you were personally affected . . . . What is there to do? Aside from checking your settings, we don’t believe there is anything for you to do.” These statements address Twitter users’ concerns about their privacy, and thus the “fix” related to privacy leaks, not software bugs that are not even mentioned in the blog post. In short, an ordinary investor would not read Twitter’s Help Center blog post as saying that Twitter had remediated the software issues.

 

C. Twitter’s July 2019 statements fall within the safe harbor provision.

Plaintiffs’ challenge of Twitter’s July 2019 statements in its shareholder letter and 10-Q fails for another reason: They were identified as forward-looking statements and fall within the safe harbor of the Exchange Act. 15 U.S.C. § 78u- 5(c)(1); see also Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 759 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Classic growth and revenue projections... are forward-looking on their face.”). These forward-looking statements in the shareholder letter and 10-Q were accompanied by very detailed meaningful cautionary language that “identified important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward- looking statements.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)(A)(i).

 

III. The District Court Properly Dismissed the Section 20(a) Claims.

Under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, “certain ‘controlling’ individuals are also liable for violations of section 10(b) and its underlying regulations.” Zucco Partners, 552 F.3d at 990 (citing 15 U.S.C. §78t(a)). Because a Section 20(a) claim is derivative, “a defendant employee of a corporation who has violated the securities laws will be jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff, as long as the plaintiff demonstrates ‘a primary violation of federal securities law’ and that ‘the defendant exercised actual power or control over the primary violator.’” Id. (citation omitted). But, as shown above, Plaintiffs did not adequately plead a primary violation of Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 by any defendant. Thus, control person liability under Section 20(a) cannot survive.

 

CONCLUSION

The district court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss is AFFIRMED.

 

(Because we hold that the complaint did not adequately allege falsity, we need not address scienter or loss causation.) (Fn. 7).

 

 

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 23, 2022, Weston Family Partnership LLP v. Twitter, Inc., Docket No. 20-17465, for Publication)

Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Securities: damages in a private securities-fraud action under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b–5: to recover damages in a private securities-fraud action under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b–5, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, reliance on a material misrepresentation or omission made by the de­fendant. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U. S. ___, ___. Requiring proof of direct reliance “would place an unnecessarily un­realistic evidentiary burden on a plaintiff who has traded on an im­personal market.” Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U. S. 224, 245. Thus, this Court has endorsed a “fraud-on-the-market” theory, which per­mits securities-fraud plaintiffs to invoke a rebuttable presumption of reliance on public, material misrepresentations regarding securities traded in an efficient market. Id., at 241–249. The fraud-on-the­ market theory facilitates the certification of securities-fraud class ac­tions by permitting reliance to be proved on a classwide basis. Invoking the fraud-on-the-market theory, respondent Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (Connecticut Retirement) sought certification of a securities-fraud class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) against biotechnology company Amgen Inc. and several of its officers (collectively, Amgen). The District Court certified the class, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Ninth Circuit rejected Amgen’s argument that Connecticut Retirement was re­quired to prove the materiality of Amgen’s alleged misrepresenta­tions and omissions before class certification in order to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirement that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” The Ninth Circuit also held that the District Court did not err in refusing to consider rebuttal evidence that Amgen had presented on the issue of materiality at the class-certification stage. Held: proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to certification of a secu­rities-fraud class action seeking money damages for alleged violations of §10(b) and Rule 10b–5 (U.S.S.Ct., 27.02.13, Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, J. Ginsburg).

Papiers- valeurs (securities) : action en dommages-intérêts basée sur une fraude en matière de transactions portant sur des papiers-valeurs. Pour se faire adjuger ses conclusions en dommages-intérêts, le demandeur doit notamment prouver s'être fié à une fausse représentation ou à une fausse omission de nature matérielle faite par le défendeur. N'est pas requise la preuve d'un lien de causalité direct entre la tromperie et l'acte ou l'omission du demandeur sur le marché. Ainsi, la Cour retient la théorie de la "fraude sur le marché", selon laquelle le demandeur peut invoquer la présomption réfragable qu'il s'est fié à de fausses déclarations matérielles et publiques relatives à des papiers-valeurs échangés sur un marché effectif. Cette théorie facilite la certification d'actions de classe en matière de papiers-valeurs, en permettant d'apporter la preuve de "s'être fié à" au niveau de la classe elle-même et non au niveau d'un demandeur individuel. Est rejeté l'argument consistant à soutenir que les demandeurs sont tenus de prouver la matérialité de la représentation frauduleuse pour obtenir la certification de la classe.