← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Macquarie Infrastructure v. Moab Partners

No. 22-1165 SCOTUS · Decided Decided SCOTUS
Argued: Jan 16, 2024 Decided: Apr 12, 2024


The Facts

Moab Partners alleged that Macquarie Infrastructure's failure to disclose the impact of an international fuel regulation on its business, as required by SEC Item 303, constituted securities fraud. The Second Circuit held an Item 303 omission could support a Rule 10b-5 claim.

The Issue

What showing of price impact securities fraud plaintiffs must make at class certification to invoke the Basic Inc. presumption of reliance

The Rules

Basic Inc. v. Levinson fraud-on-the-market presumption

Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-5

Halliburton II - price impact at class certification

The Application

History

Moab Partners argued that Macquarie Infrastructure's failure to disclose information about the international fuel regulation's business impact, information plainly required under SEC Item 303, should constitute securities fraud under Rule 10b-5. The Court rejected this argument, finding that Macquarie's silence, though regulatory non-compliant, did not create Rule 10b-5 liability absent an affirmative statement that the omission rendered misleading. The decision clarified that SEC disclosure rules and Rule 10b-5's requirements operate on different planes: regulatory non-compliance does not automatically trigger fraud liability. Because Moab could identify no false or misleading affirmative statement by Macquarie, the pure omission fell outside Rule 10b-5's scope regardless of Item 303's mandate to disclose.

The Conclusion

**The Court reversed 9-0, holding that Item 303 omissions alone do not support Rule 10b-5 claims.** Investors must identify an affirmative statement rendered false or misleading by the failure to disclose; pure silence is not actionable under the securities fraud rule.

CourtSupreme Court of the United States
FiledDec 22, 2022
CL Statusactive
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert Granted -
Statusactive
Filed (CL)Dec 22, 2022
View on CourtListener →
SCOTUS TMR-6e2050cb May 14, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

The Supreme Court unanimously held that a failure to disclose information required by SEC Item 303, which governs management discussion of known trends and risks, does not by itself give rise to a securities fraud claim under Rule 10b-5 absent an affirmative misstatement or misleading half-truth. The ruling resolved a circuit split on pure omission liability.

Facts

Moab Partners alleged that Macquarie Infrastructure's failure to disclose the impact of an international fuel regulation on its business, as required by SEC Item 303, constituted securities fraud. The Second Circuit held an Item 303 omission could support a Rule 10b-5 claim.

Issue

Whether a pure omission of information required by SEC Item 303 can constitute an actionable securities fraud claim under Rule 10b-5(b) without a corresponding affirmative misstatement.

Rule

Rule 10b-5(b) prohibits omitting material facts only when the omission renders an affirmative statement misleading. A pure silence, without any accompanying statement that becomes misleading by the omission, does not violate Rule 10b-5 even if the omitted fact was required to be disclosed by SEC regulation.

Analysis

Moab Partners argued that Macquarie Infrastructure's failure to disclose information about the international fuel regulation's business impact. Information plainly required under SEC Item 303,should constitute securities fraud under Rule 10b-5. The Court rejected this argument, finding that Macquarie's silence, though regulatory non-compliant, did not create Rule 10b-5 liability absent an affirmative statement that the omission rendered misleading. The decision clarified that SEC disclosure rules and Rule 10b-5's requirements operate on different planes: regulatory non-compliance does not automatically trigger fraud liability. Because Moab could identify no false or misleading affirmative statement by Macquarie, the pure omission fell outside Rule 10b-5's scope regardless of Item 303's mandate to disclose.

Conclusion

**The Court reversed 9-0, holding that Item 303 omissions alone do not support Rule 10b-5 claims.** Investors must identify an affirmative statement rendered false or misleading by the failure to disclose; pure silence is not actionable under the securities fraud rule.

Notes

OT2023. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support