Supreme Court Affirms That Dissemination of False and Misleading Statement Can Result In Liability Under Subsections (a) and (c) of SEC Rule 10b-5


On March 27, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 17-1077, -- S. Ct. --, 2019 WL 1369839 (2019) affirming the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) finding that “by knowing disseminating false information to prospective investors, [Francis] Lorenzo had violated other parts of Rule 10b-5, sections (a) and (c), as well as § 10(b) and § 17(a)(1)” of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).  Id. at *4, *8.  The primary issue on appeal was “whether those who do not ‘make’ statements (as Janus defined ‘make’), but who disseminate false or misleading statements to potential investors with the intent to defraud, can be found to have violated the other parts of [SEC] Rule 10b–5, subsections (a) and (c), as well as related provisions of the securities laws, § 10(b) of the [Exchange Act].”  Id. at *3 

By way of background, Lorenzo was the director of investment banking at Charles Vista, LLC, a registered broker dealer which was retained by Waste2Energy Holdings, Inc. (“Waste2Energy”) to sell $15 million worth of debentures to investors.  Id. at *3.  Lorenzo sent two e-mails to prospective investors describing the debenture offering claiming that Waste2Energy had “3 layers of protection, including $10 million in ‘confirmed assets.’”  Id.  However, Lorenzo’s e-mails failed to disclose that Waste2Energy’s “intellectual property was worthless, that it had ‘[w]rit[ten] off . . . all [of its] intangible assets,’ and that its total assets (as of March 31, 2009) amounted to $370,552,” in contrast to the $10 million in confirmed assets Lorenzo touted.  Id.  Lorenzo testified that these false and misleading e-mails were sent “at the direction of [Lorenzo’s] boss, who supplied the content and ‘approved’ the messages.”  Id.

The SEC fined Lorenzo $15,000, ordered him to cease and desist from violating securities laws, and barred him from working in the securities Industry for life.  Id.  Lorenzo appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing the following: (1) “that he lacked the intent required to establish a violation of Rule 10b-5,” i.e., scienter; and (2) that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011), “he could not be held liable under subsection (b) of Rule 10b-5,” because it was Lorenzo’s boss, not Lorenzo, who had “ultimate authority” over the content of his false and/or misleading emails.  Lorenzo, 2019 WL 1369839 at *4.  The Court of Appeals agreed with Lorenzo, but sustained the SEC’s finding that by knowingly disseminating false information to investors, Lorenzo had violated other parts of Rule 10b-5, subsections (a) and (c), as well as § 10(b) and § 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act. 

The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that “dissemination of false or misleading statements information with the intent to defraud can fall within the scope of subsections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5[.]”  Id.  Specifically, “[b]y sending emails he understood to contain material untruths, Lorenzo ‘employ[ed]’ a ‘device,’ ‘scheme,’ and ‘artifice to defraud[,]’” Lorenzo violated Rule 10b-5(a).  Id. at *5.  As well, by doing the same, Lorenzo “engage[d] in a[n] act, practice, or course of business’ that ‘operate[d] . . . as a fraud or deceit’” as prohibited by Rule 10b-5(c).  Id.  The Supreme Court’s decision concludes, “Congress intended to root out all manner of fraud in the securities industry.  And it gave the [SEC] the tools to accomplish that.” 

The full opinion is linked below.

About Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP focuses on complex civil litigation, including securities, antitrust, wage and hour, personal injury and consumer class actions as well as shareholder derivative and merger and transactional litigation. The firm is headquartered in New York, and maintains offices in California, Delaware, Georgia and Pennsylvania.

Since its founding in 1995, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous high-profile cases which ultimately provided significant recoveries to investors, direct purchasers, consumers and employees.

To schedule a free consultation with our attorneys and to learn more about your legal rights, call our offices today at (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330.

About Sherief Morsy

Sherief Morsy's practice is focused on securities litigation. Sherief is an associate in the firm's New York office.

Tags: Securities and Exchange Commission, faruqi & faruqi, investigation, news, litigation, settlement notice, case, faruqi law, faruqi blog, faruqilaw Sherief Morsy Sherief Morsy
Associate at Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP

New York office
Tel: (212) 983-9330
Fax: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: smorsy@faruqilaw.com

Finding us

Our Offices


Our offices are nationwide. If you have any questions about a case or our firm, please contact us.

New York

685 Third Avenue 26th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(212) 983-9330
(877) 247-4292
(212) 983-9331

California

10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470
Los Angeles, California 90024
(424) 256-2884
(424) 256-2885

Delaware

3828 Kennett Pike Suite 201
Wilmington, Delaware 19807
(302) 482-3182
(302) 482-3612

Georgia

3975 Roswell Rd Suite A
Atlanta, Georgia 30342
(404) 847-0617
(404) 506-9534

Pennsylvania

1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1550
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 277-5770
(215) 277-5771

Faruqi & Faruqi office in New York, New York

Faruqi & Faruqi office in Los Angeles, California

Faruqi & Faruqi office in Wilmington, Delaware

Faruqi & Faruqi office in Atlanta, Georgia

Faruqi & Faruqi office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania