Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Supreme Court Ruling Sets Precedent for Securities Lawsuits Against Public Companies

People outside discussing a document

Supreme Court Ruling Sets Precedent for Securities Lawsuits Against Public Companies

Supreme Court Ruling Sets Precedent for Securities Lawsuits Against Public Companies

The U.S. Supreme Court made a significant decision affecting how lawsuits can be filed against public companies under specific securities laws (Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners).

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, a company involved in various infrastructure projects, didn’t disclose how a new regulation (IMO 2020) would negatively affect its business. This regulation aimed to stop the use of a certain type of fuel oil, which Macquarie stored and handled.

Investors sued Macquarie (under Rule 10(b) and Rule Rule 10b5), claiming the company should have told its shareholders that the new regulation would hurt its business. They argued this under a rule that requires companies to report anything that could significantly impact their financial health.

Initially, a lower court dismissed the lawsuit, but the appeals court disagreed, suggesting the case could proceed based on the company’s failure to disclose these important details. This led to different opinions among various courts, creating a need for a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided that just failing to mention something important (pure omissions) isn’t enough to be sued under the specific securities law they were considering. Therefore, this decision makes it harder for shareholders in the future to sue companies unless they can prove that the company’s failure to disclose certain information made their other public statements untrue or misleading.

Abstract skyscraper photo

Integrated Legal Support: Compliance and Consultation

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Read more

Submit Inquiry or Schedule Consultation

Empowering 1,000+ Businesses Worldwide
Serving Clients Across 25+ Nations
Securing Over $1 Billion for Our Clients