Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

SEC Puts Janus in its Place
June 15, 2015

Interpretive positions adopted in a recent SEC opinion will, if accepted by the courts, greatly undermine the significance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 opinion in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First DerivativeTraders.

Janus held that an investment adviser to a mutual fund was not the "maker" of allegedly false statements in the fund’s prospectus for purposes of liability in a private action for violations of SEC Rule 10b-5(b). The Court reasoned that because the fund, which filed the prospectus, had "ultimate authority" over the prospectus’s content and dissemination, the adviser could not have "made" the statements at issue even if the adviser was "significantly involved" in preparing the prospectus.

Nevertheless, under the SEC’s interpretations in In the Matter of John P. Flannery and James D. Hopkins, most, if not all, actions that could be brought under Rule 10b-5(b) also could be brought under Rule 10b-5(a) or (c). Moreover, the SEC expressed the view that Janus has no applicability to Rule 10b-5(a) or (c) because the terms of those subsections do not require that the alleged violator be the "maker" of any statement at issue. Under the SEC’s analysis, therefore, avoiding the Supreme Court’s holding in Janus–limiting Rule 10b-5(b) liability to "makers" as defined by the Court – could require nothing more than pleading a violation of one or both of those other subsections, rather than subsection (b).

In the course of its nearly 60-page opinion in Flannery, the SEC expressed its views on a wide variety of interpretive questions. Two SEC Commissioners, Republicans Gallagher and Piwowar, dissented from the opinion, however, and several of the SEC’s positions will doubtless stir controversy. We urge interested readers to grab a cup of coffee and spend some time absorbing the many contours of this deliberately crafted SEC opinion.
Related Practices
Securities Litigation and Enforcement
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. 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 use our Contact Us form via the link below. 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.