AND · 15usc78j:statement
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.
Exact element source
any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivanceSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec78j; Unicode character offsets [907:958] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8ceaded2a57e5b49e22a4766033c8899ebfd730667700a031b8db7f80ea91e32.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| existing-fact/vehicle-sales-and-committed-purchaser | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/927/0177-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied | |
| half-truth | Statement rendered misleading by omitted qualifying information. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| statement-maker/independent-fund-adviser | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/564/0135-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 — not | |
| untrue-statement | False representation of material fact in its circumstances. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/927/0177-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 | Materially false statement or misleading half-truth | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: McAuliffe and Rodham; count: federal securities fraud; subject: party=McAuliffe and Rodham; count=federal securities fraud Sales, employees, existing capital, and a claimed agreement with Denmark describe ascertainable existing facts. This block records rejection of the puffery/forward-looking characterization, not success on the whole claim. | existing-fact/vehicle-sales-and-committed-purchaser | (1) On April 25, 2011, Rodham claimed that EB-5 funds accounted for only 7.8% of GreenTech's capital during an event in Beijing, China.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [3945:4080] (end exclusive); SHA-256 eb5a1012c116a662efd3d60680f34148884a918bf8c5a992ebc21edab2bdb014.(1) On November 11, 2011, McAuliffe told a CNBC interviewer that GreenTech "ha[d] only sold 11,000 cars, but it's still a new business for us." J.A. 154.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [4482:4635] (end exclusive); SHA-256 eb5a1012c116a662efd3d60680f34148884a918bf8c5a992ebc21edab2bdb014.The complaint alleges that each of those statements was false when made because GreenTech (1) had not sold 11,000 cars; (2) did not have a contract with Denmark; (3) had not mass-produced any electric vehicles; and (4) had fewer than one hundred employees.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [5115:5371] (end exclusive); SHA-256 eb5a1012c116a662efd3d60680f34148884a918bf8c5a992ebc21edab2bdb014.The problem for defendants, however, is that their alleged misstatements go beyond mere projections or puffery.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [15316:15427] (end exclusive); SHA-256 eb5a1012c116a662efd3d60680f34148884a918bf8c5a992ebc21edab2bdb014.Plaintiffs' allegation thus counts as an assertion of fact under the case law in this circuit.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [16441:16535] (end exclusive); SHA-256 eb5a1012c116a662efd3d60680f34148884a918bf8c5a992ebc21edab2bdb014. |
| /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
interpretation
Rather, absent a duty, material information needn't be disclosed unless its omission would render misleading other information that an issuer has disclosed.
Rather, absent a duty, material information needn't be disclosed unless its omission would render misleading other information that an issuer has disclosed.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [14508:14664] (end exclusive); SHA-256 163ed4472ed85b4e6b4dfef6442cec2c05fd4b4d6ce3587bfabbd6a8244b6f91.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.
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.