Docket 23-980
Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank
DecidedNov 22, 2024
Per Curiamdecision
Source: CourtListener.
Supreme Court dismisses Facebook securities disclosure case without deciding it
What it does
The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as "improvidently granted," meaning it concluded — after agreeing to hear the case — that it should not have taken it up. No legal rule was changed or established. The lower Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling remains in place.
Who benefits
Amalgamated Bank and other investors who sued Facebook retain the benefit of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, which allowed their lawsuit to proceed.
Who is affected
Facebook (now Meta) and other publicly traded companies that sought a clearer or more favorable legal standard for how risk disclosures in securities filings are evaluated in court.
Practical impact
Because the Court dismissed the case without ruling on the merits, the Ninth Circuit's decision below stands and governs within that circuit. No nationwide legal standard was set. Companies and investors in other circuits remain subject to different, potentially conflicting rules on securities risk disclosures, and the underlying legal question remains unresolved.
Majority reasoning
The Court issued a one-sentence Per Curiam order — meaning an unsigned ruling issued in the name of the Court as a whole — stating only that the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. This is a procedural outcome in which the Court declines to decide the merits of the case after having previously agreed to hear it. No reasoning was provided beyond that single statement.
Constitutional question
The Court had agreed to decide what legal standard applies when companies make risk disclosures to investors under federal securities law, but ultimately dismissed the case without answering that question.