21-2524
City of Riviera Beach Gen. Emps. Ret. Sys. et al. v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. et al.
                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
                                     SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS
PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST
CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH
THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
       At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 19th day of August, two thousand twenty-four.
PRESENT:
               PIERRE N. LEVAL,
               REENA RAGGI,
               MYRNA PÉREZ,
                    Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________

MOAB PARTNERS, L.P.,
                      Lead Plaintiff-Appellant,
CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH GENERAL EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated,
                      Plaintiff,

               v.                                                          No. 21-2524
MACQUARIE     INFRASTRUCTURE     CORPORATION,
JAMES HOOKE, JAY DAVIS, LIAM STEWART, RICHARD
D. COURTNEY, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ROBERT
CHOI, MARTIN STANLEY, NORMAN H. BROWN, JR.,
GEORGE W. CARMANY, III, HENRY E. LENTZ, OUMA
SANANIKONE, WILLIAM H. WEBB, MACQUARIE
INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT (USA) INC.,

                  Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________________
FOR LEAD PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:                  SALVATORE J. GRAZIANO, Lauren A.
                                               Ormsbee, Jesse L. Jensen, James M. Fee,
                                               Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
                                               LLP, New York, NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES:                      Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation,
                                               James Hooke, Jay Davis, Liam Stewart,
                                               Richard D. Courtney, Robert Choi, Martin
                                               Stanley, Norman H. Brown, Jr., George W.
                                               Carmany, III, Henry E. Lentz, Ouma
                                               Sananikone, and William H. Webb
                                               JOHN E. SCHREIBER, Frank S. Restagno,
                                               Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY.
                                               Linda T. Coberly, Winston & Strawn LLP,
                                               Chicago, IL.
                                               Lauren Gailey, Winston & Strawn LLP,
                                               Washington, DC.
                                               Richard W. Reinthaler, Pinehurst, NC.
                                               Macquarie     Infrastructure   Management
                                               (USA) Inc.
                                               Christopher M. Paparella, Justin Ben-Asher,
                                               Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York, NY.
                                               Barclays Capital Inc.
                                               Susanna M. Buergel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
                                               Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY

      Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 22–1165.

      UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the October 7, 2021 judgment of the district court is VACATED IN PART,

AFFIRMED IN PART, and that the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.




                                           2
                                         BACKGROUND

       We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues

on appeal, which we recount only in a limited manner to explain our decision.

       Plaintiff Moab Partners, L.P. (“Moab”) appeals from a judgment of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing Moab’s consolidated amended

complaint (the “Complaint”) under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moab

brought claims against Defendants Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (“MIC”), MIC’s

manager, Macquarie Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc. (“MIMUSA”), MIC’s underwriter for

its November 2016 secondary public offering, Barclays Capital Inc., and certain former executives

and directors of MIC, International-Matex Tank Terminals (“IMTT”), and MIMUSA (collectively,

“Defendants”).

       The Complaint alleges violations of: (1) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934 (“Exchange Act”) and United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule

10b-5 (“Count One”); (2) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (“Count Two”); (3) Section 20A of

the Exchange Act (“Count Three”); (4) Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”)

(“Count Four”); (5) Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act (“Count Five”); and (6) Section 15 of

the Securities Act (“Count Six”). The crux of Moab’s claims is that Defendants made material

omissions and false and misleading “half-truth” statements regarding IMTT, one of MIC’s top-

performing subsidiaries.

       This Court previously held that Moab adequately pleaded material omissions and facts

giving rise to a strong inference of scienter and, as such, vacated the judgment of the district court

and remanded for further proceedings. This case is now before us on remand from the Supreme

Court of the United States, which vacated this Court’s decision in part and remanded for further


                                                  3
proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. See Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v.

Moab Partners, L.P., 

 (2024). In doing so, the Supreme Court clarified that, despite

our Circuit’s “binding precedent” holding to the contrary, “Rule 10b-5(b) does not proscribe pure

omissions.” 

.

       On remand, we invited the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs addressing:

       Whether, in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion . . . , the Plaintiff’s Complaint
       adequately alleges that the Defendants made material omissions and false and
       misleading statements in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 . . . , the
       Securities Act of 1933 . . . , and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

No. 21-2524, ECF No. 163.

                                          DISCUSSION

       Having given due consideration to the Supreme Court’s decision in Macquarie, and the

parties’ supplemental briefing, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s opinion: (1) required

reconsideration of Moab’s claims under Count One; and (2) did not disturb our previous analysis

with respect to Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six.


  I.   Count One

       After reviewing the Supreme Court’s Macquarie opinion, we conclude that as to Count

One: (1) the Court did not disturb our previous analysis with respect to the claims under Rule 10b-

5(b) resting on a “half-truth” theory or the claims under Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c); and (2) Moab

failed to state a claim for relief under Rule 10b-5(b) resting on “pure omissions.”

       A.     The Supreme Court did not disturb our previous analysis with respect to
       Moab’s Count One claims under Rule 10b-5(b) pertaining to “half-truths” or under
       Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c).

       In the Macquarie opinion, the Supreme Court did not question this Court’s previous

analysis of Moab’s Count One claims under Rule 10b-5(b) pertaining to “half-truths.” The



                                                 4
Supreme Court made clear that it “granted certiorari to address the Second Circuit’s pure omission

analysis, not its half-truth analysis.” Macquarie, 

 n.2 (emphasis added).

       Nor did the Supreme Court question our previous analysis of Moab’s Count One claims

under Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c). The Supreme Court explicitly declined to “opine on . . .

whether Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c) support liability for pure omissions.” 

       We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment dismissing Moab’s claims under Rule

10b-5(b) pertaining to half-truths, as well as Moab’s claims under Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c),

for the reasons stated in our prior opinion. See Moab Partners, 

, at *2–5.

       B.      Moab’s Count One claims based on pure omissions failed to state a claim for
       a violation of Rule 10b-5(b).

       The parties do not dispute that Moab’s Exchange Act claims under Section 10(b) and Rule

10b-5(b) relying on a “pure omission” theory must be dismissed because, as the Supreme Court

held, “[p]ure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b).” Macquarie, 

.

The district court’s dismissal of those claims, therefore, must be affirmed.


 II.   Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six

       Our previous analysis of Moab’s claims under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange

Act in Counts Two and Three, and the Securities Act in Counts Four, Five, and Six, is unchanged.

The Supreme Court explicitly limited its ruling in Macquarie to “the Second Circuit’s pure

omission analysis” under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b), noting that it granted certiorari

specifically to resolve a split among the courts of appeals as to “whether a failure to make a

disclosure required by Item 303 [of SEC Regulation S-K] can support a private claim under Section

10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) in the absence of an otherwise-misleading statement.” Macquarie, 

, 266 n.2 (“The Court does not opine on issues that are either tangential to the question


                                                 5
presented or were not passed upon below . . . .”). We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment

dismissing Moab’s claims as to Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six for the reasons stated in

our prior opinion. See Moab Partners, L.P. v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., No. 21-2524, 

, at *2–5 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2022).

                                         CONCLUSION

       Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s judgment dismissing Moab’s claims under:

(1) Count One as to the claims under Rule 10b-5(b) resting on half-truths, as well as those under

Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c); and (2) Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six. We further

AFFIRM the district court’s judgment dismissing Moab’s Count One claims under Rule 10b-5(b)

resting on pure omissions, and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent

with this summary order.



                                              FOR THE COURT:
                                              Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court




                                                 6