October Term 2023 · Docket 22-1165

Does an omission render a disclosure misleading under Rule 10b-5?

The parties dispute whether omitting a material fact makes a statement misleading.

Official caption
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P.
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

    the sides that brought the case argue the text of Rule 10b-5 controls the outcome.

    the opposing sides argue the context of the disclosure matters more than the text.

    justice_question_1

    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

This case tests the legal standard for misleading omissions in securities disclosures.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 16, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want a narrow rule requiring a tight factual link between the statement and the omission.

the opposing sides want a broad rule where context determines if an omission misleads.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the text of Rule 10b-5 requires a specific connection between the statement and the omission.

the opposing sides argue the context of the disclosure determines whether an omission creates a misleading impression.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the distinction between half-truths and omissions is hard to apply.

Justice Sotomayor asked if a specific certification is part of the 303 filing requirement.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the scope of liability for omitted facts in corporate disclosures.

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