Supreme Court of the United States · 2011-06-13
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: private Rule 10b-5(b) damages; dismissal reviewed on allegations; majority only; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /us/564/0135-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 | Materially false statement or misleading half-truth | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: Janus Capital Management LLC; theory: Rule 10b-5(b) ultimate authority; subject: party=Janus Capital Management LLC; theory=Rule 10b-5(b) ultimate authority Preparation and affiliated management supplied influence, but the legally separate fund retained ultimate control. No conclusion on every other fraud element follows from dismissal on maker status. | statement-maker/independent-fund-adviser | Janus Capital Group, Inc. (JCG), is a publicly traded company that created the Janus family of mutual funds. These mutual funds are organized in a Massachusetts business trust, the Janus Investment Fund. Janus Investment Fund retained JCG’s wholly owned subsidiary, JCM, to be its investment adviser and administrator. JCG and JCM are the petitioners here.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_564.jsonl#/us/564/0135-01; Unicode character offsets [590:946] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73a3ba3854ec054a40c5b6756058bf95612e9c24c9016613a6ce2738c696ecd9.Although JCG created Janus Investment Fund, Janus Investment Fund is a separate legal entity owned entirely by mutual fund investors.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_564.jsonl#/us/564/0135-01; Unicode character offsets [947:1080] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73a3ba3854ec054a40c5b6756058bf95612e9c24c9016613a6ce2738c696ecd9.At all times relevant to this case, all of the officers of Janus Investment Fund were also officers of JCM, but only one member of Janus Investment Fund’s board of trustees was associated with JCM.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_564.jsonl#/us/564/0135-01; Unicode character offsets [1395:1592] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73a3ba3854ec054a40c5b6756058bf95612e9c24c9016613a6ce2738c696ecd9.There is no allegation that JCM in fact filed the prospectuses and falsely attributed them to Janus Investment Fund.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_564.jsonl#/us/564/0135-01; Unicode character offsets [14412:14528] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73a3ba3854ec054a40c5b6756058bf95612e9c24c9016613a6ce2738c696ecd9.For purposes of Rule 10b-5, the maker of a statement is the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_564.jsonl#/us/564/0135-01; Unicode character offsets [7684:7865] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73a3ba3854ec054a40c5b6756058bf95612e9c24c9016613a6ce2738c696ecd9.But this assistance, subject to the ultimate control of Janus Investment Fund, does not mean that JCM “made” any statements in the prospectuses.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_564.jsonl#/us/564/0135-01; Unicode character offsets [14939:15083] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73a3ba3854ec054a40c5b6756058bf95612e9c24c9016613a6ce2738c696ecd9. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
For purposes of Rule 10b-5, the maker of a statement is the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it.
/us/564/0135-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2011
For purposes of Rule 10b-5, the maker of a statement is the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_564.jsonl#/us/564/0135-01; Unicode character offsets [7684:7865] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73a3ba3854ec054a40c5b6756058bf95612e9c24c9016613a6ce2738c696ecd9.Under Janus, the Rule 10b-5(b) maker must have ultimate authority over content and whether/how to communicate the statement; drafting assistance alone is insufficient. Rule 10b-5(b) requires a false statement or omission that makes statements actually made misleading. Macquarie (2024) excludes pure omissions even when Item 303 requires disclosure. Do not turn every duty to disclose into a 10b-5(b) private claim; older broad omission phrasing in the cited 2019 opinions is bounded by that holding.