Confusion and Uncertainty about the Section 12(a)(2) Claim at Slack Oral Argument
www.finregrag.com
The Supreme Court recently held oral argument in Slack Techs., LLC v. Pirani (No. 22-200) to consider whether a buyer of securities in a direct listing needed to prove that he bought shares covered by an allegedly misleading registration statement to be a proper plaintiff under either section 11 or 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. The case was mainly about the “tracing” requirement of section 11, but the oral argument unexpectedly spent an inordinate amount of time on section 12.
Confusion and Uncertainty about the Section 12(a)(2) Claim at Slack Oral Argument
Confusion and Uncertainty about the Section…
Confusion and Uncertainty about the Section 12(a)(2) Claim at Slack Oral Argument
The Supreme Court recently held oral argument in Slack Techs., LLC v. Pirani (No. 22-200) to consider whether a buyer of securities in a direct listing needed to prove that he bought shares covered by an allegedly misleading registration statement to be a proper plaintiff under either section 11 or 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. The case was mainly about the “tracing” requirement of section 11, but the oral argument unexpectedly spent an inordinate amount of time on section 12.