October Term 2022 · Docket 22-200

Does Section 11 liability cover unregistered shares sold in a direct listing?

Slack argues Section 11 covers only registered shares. Pirani argues it covers all shares in the offering.

Official caption
Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Russell argued the term such security refers to registered shares.

    Mr. Hungar argued Sections 11 and 12 enforce registration requirements.

    Mr. Hungar stated Slack did not withdraw its registration statement entirely.

    Justice Sotomayor questioned why Section 4 needed specific mention in the statute.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Slack Technologies and Pirani dispute the scope of securities liability. Slack claims Section 11 applies only to registered shares. Pirani claims it applies to all shares in the offering. The Court must define the statutory term such security.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 17, 2023.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Slack wants the Court to limit Section 11 liability to registered shares only.

Pirani wants the Court to extend Section 11 liability to all shares in the offering.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Slack argues the statute links liability exclusively to registered shares.

Pirani argues the statute covers all shares sold in the direct listing.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked if direct listings existed before this case.

Justice Thomas asked about the origin of the tracing requirement.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of securities fraud liability. Investors rely on this definition to assess risk. Companies rely on it to structure offerings. The outcome shapes future direct listing practices.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON