Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Supreme Court to Resolve Whether Failure to Disclose Under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K Gives Rise to Securities Fraud Claims

April 12, 2017 by John Clabby

On March 27, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Leidos Inc., f/k/a SAIC Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System, a securities fraud class action. The case will resolve a circuit split over whether a failure to disclose under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K can give rise to a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

Investor plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), now known as Leidos. Plaintiffs alleged that SAIC failed, in March 2011, to disclose that it had potential liability exposure as a result of a criminal kickback scheme concerning business with the New York City government. SAIC first disclosed the issue in June 2011, after the city formally requested repayment. Nine months later, SAIC settled with the city for $500 million.

Item 303 requires companies to, among other things, “[d]escribe any known trends or uncertainties that have had or that the registrant reasonably expects will have a material favorable or unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing operations.” As one of their arguments, plaintiffs contended that SAIC knew of the city’s allegations and the alleged scheme well before June 2011, and that the criminal investigation alone was an uncertainty that SAIC reasonably expected would have a material and unfavorable impact and that should have been disclosed under Item 303.

In separate decisions in September 2013 and January 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims, reasoning that plaintiffs’ pleading was essentially a “hindsight pleading.” The district court further denied plaintiffs’ motions for relief from judgment, reasoning that any amendment to include the Item 303 claims based on the March 2011 omissions would be futile.

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal, with the exception of the claims asserting that SAIC omitted disclosures required under Item 303, finding that the district court erred in its futility determination. Citing its own precedent, the panel stated, “[i]n Stratte‐McClure, we held that Item 303 imposes an affirmative duty to disclose . . . [that] can serve as the basis for a securities fraud claim under Section 10(b)” and that “failure to comply with Item 303 . . . can give rise to liability under Rule 10b–5 so long as the omission is material…” (internal quotations omitted).

The Second Circuit’s position on this point reflects a circuit split on the issue. The Second Circuit held that a non-disclosure under Item 303 may, under some circumstances, give rise to private securities fraud liability. The Third and Ninth Circuits hold that it may not.

The Ninth Circuit, in In re NVIDIA Corp. Securities Litigation, and the Third Circuit in Oran v. Stafford, have taken the position that a violation of Item 303 disclosure requirements does not lead inevitably to the conclusion that such a disclosure would be required under Rule 10b-5; instead, a duty must be separately shown. The Third and Ninth Circuits reasoned that because materiality under the securities laws differed from materiality under Item 303, a violation of the latter is not a violation of the former.

This circuit split will soon be resolved by the Supreme Court, presumably in 2018.

Leidos Inc., fka SAIC Inc., v. Indiana Public Retirement System et al., No. 14-4140 (2nd Cir. Apr. 13, 2016), cert. granted No. 16-581 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2017).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Class Notice Online Works Just Fine

Next Article »

Eleventh Circuit Finds Dual Citizenship Defeats CAFA Diversity
John Clabby

About John Clabby

John E. Clabby is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida. Connect with John on LinkedIn.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.