Slicing the Supreme Court’s Macquarie Cake:
10b-5 Cases After the SCOTUS Decision
Tuesday, February 18, 2025 at 2:00 PM EDT
How does the Supreme Court’s decision in Macquarie v. Moab change how 10b-5 decisions will be brought and defended?
Whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant, the Supreme Court’s decision in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners L.P. changes the boundaries of a viable 10b-5 litigation. The Supreme Court ruled that 10b-5-(b) claims based on missing relevant information can only be brought if that missing information makes some other statement a half-truth. “In other words, the difference between a pure omission and a half-truth is the difference between a child not telling his parents he ate a whole cake and telling them he had dessert,” according to the Supreme Court. The Court’s ruling does define certain limitations. However, under careful reading of the sources underpinning the Court’s opinion, the ruling may be more a prescription of how to bring a case, rather than a limitation on what cases can be brought. Understanding which claims are in bounds and which are out under the new ruling will be important for every 10b-5 case.
This webinar will discuss who has to be misled by a half-truth in a 10b-5-(b) case, how that defines what makes a statement misleading and what avenues are open and closed for a valid 10b-5-(b). It will review the definitions used by the Court to make its decisions, the parts of 10b-5 that the Court did not address, and how economists, financial experts and investors use financial statements and corporate disclosures to value publicly traded stocks.
This Webinar will cover the following topics:
1. How are stock prices set, who sets them and what would be misleading to them?
2. What is the definition of a “statement” that could be made into a half-truth, where the Supreme Court found that definition, and what is the full definition of a “statement” from that source?
3. Which parts of 10b-5 the Supreme Court ruled on and which parts it did not?
4. What empirical evidence demonstrates that missing information made other statements misleading to economists, financial experts, and investors, the users of the half-true statement?
Advanced Analytical Consulting Group (AACG) has experts in finance, economics, econometrics and computing who have testified in state and federal courts for and against the Securities Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service in the US and internationally.
WHEN IT HAS TO BE RIGHT