October Term 2024 · Docket 23-980

Does a risk disclosure mislead investors by omitting a past event?

Facebook argues that risk factors need not mention past events. Amalgamated Bank claims such omissions deceive investors.

Official caption
Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank
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

    Facebook's counsel argued that the Ninth Circuit created a sweeping liability regime.

    Amalgamated Bank's counsel argued that risk disclosures must not misrepresent the past.

    Justice Jackson asked why companies warn about specific risks.

    Justice Kagan presented a hypothetical scenario regarding misleading statements.

    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

The dispute centers on whether a company must disclose past events in its risk factors. Facebook argues that risk factors describe future possibilities. Amalgamated Bank argues that omitting past events misleads investors about current risks.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 6, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Facebook wants the Court to limit liability for omitted past events.

Amalgamated Bank wants the Court to require disclosure of past events.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Facebook argues that risk factors only address future probabilities.

Amalgamated Bank argues that risk factors must reflect current realities.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked if the district court focused on falsity.

Justice Kagan asked if a statement can be misleading without an embedded claim.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of corporate disclosure duties. It determines whether companies must reveal past events in risk factors. Investors rely on these disclosures to assess current risks. The outcome shapes future securities litigation standards.

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