Are Item 303 Omissions Actionable Under Rule 10b-5?
During its October term this year, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in Leidos v. Indiana Public Retirement System, No. 16-581, on an important federal securities fraud issue: Whether a publicly held company's omission of "known trends and uncertainties" in its annual or interim reports, as required by Item 303 of Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation S-K, can give rise to a private securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 (Rule 10-5).
June 05, 2017 at 05:07 PM
7 minute read
During its October term this year, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in Leidos v. Indiana Public Retirement System, No. 16-581, on an important federal securities fraud issue: Whether a publicly held company's omission of “known trends and uncertainties” in its annual or interim reports, as required by Item 303 of Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation S-K, can give rise to a private securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 (Rule 10-5). The court granted Leidos Inc.'s writ of certiorari to resolve a conflict between the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit—which held in the securities class action against Leidos that a violation of Item 303 can give rise to Rule 10b-5 liability—and the Ninth and Third circuits—which, in earlier decisions, had held to the contrary.
Applying the holding and reasoning of its 2015 opinion, Stratte-McClure v. Morgan Stanley, 776 F.3d 94, 101 (2d Cir. 2015), the Second Circuit held in Indiana Public Retirement System v. SAIC, 818 F.3d 85, 94 & n.7 (2d Cir. 2016), that the failure of Leidos (formerly known as SAIC Inc.) to disclose under Item 303 its exposure for alleged employee fraud and overbilling in connection with certain government contract work stated a cause of action under Rule 10b-5. The Second Circuit's decisions in Stratte-McClure and SAIC conflict with the Ninth Circuit's opinion, In re NVIDIA Securities Litigation, 768 F.3d 1046, 1054-56 (9th Cir. 2014), and the Third Circuit's opinion, Oran v. Stafford, 226 F.3d 275, 287-88 (3d Cir. 2000), in which the courts held that an Item 303 omission is not actionable under Rule 10b-5.
In granting certiorari, the court may have found this circuit split particularly compelling since, as Leidos pointed out in its cert petition, most securities class actions are filed in the Second and Ninth circuits. The Third Circuit is the third most popular circuit for filing securities class actions. In addition, Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion in Oran when he served on the Third Circuit.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Increase in Artificial Intelligence-Related Securities Class Actions
10 minute read'Training to Replace Yourself': Kessler Topaz Co-Founder Set to Retire
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Breon Peace, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Announces Upcoming Resignation
- 2Georgia Law Firm's Longtime Office Manager Charged With Theft Of IOLTA Funds
- 3Juries Can Use Slo-Mo to Evaluate Videos, NJ Justices Say
- 4An AI Danger to Minors: Two Texas Families Want to Shut Down Character.AI
- 5T14 Sees Black, Hispanic Law Student Representation Decline Following End of Affirmative Action
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250