The Supreme Court recently issued several unanimous decisions affecting a range of legal areas. In Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., the Court clarified the limits of private actions under SEC Rule 10b-5(b) for pure omissions. In Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., the Court determined that the Federal Arbitration Act exemption does not require employment in the transportation industry. Finally, in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the Court held that legislative permit conditions are subject to scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

To learn more about the key takeaways of these pivotal decisions and their implications, click the corresponding link.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That Pure Omissions Are Not Actionable Under SEC Rule 10b-5(b)

On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. that SEC Regulation S-K, Item 303 could not support a private right of action under Rule 10b-5(b) for pure omissions made in required disclosures.  Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, which reversed the Second Circuit’s decision and remanded the case. Read the full synopsis here.  

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Vacates Second Circuit’s Transportation-Industry Requirement For Federal Arbitration Exemption

On April 12, 2024, the Second Circuit suffered another unanimous reversal by the Supreme Court. In Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that a worker need not work for a company in the transportation industry to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That The Takings Clause Applies To Legislative (Not Just Administrative) Land-Use Permit Conditions

In yet another unanimous decision issued on April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court held in Sheetz v. Cnty. of El Dorado, California that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause applies to administrative and legislative permit conditions. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, which reversed the California Court of Appeal’s decision and remanded the case. Read the full synopsis here.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Cory Webster, Christopher Sakauye, Monika Harris, Puja Valera, or A. Joseph Duffy, IV.