Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the circuit split regarding the misleading nature of risk factor disclosures in SEC filings when a warned risk has already transpired

QUESTION PRESENTED This petition presents a question nearly identical to that already before the Court in Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 23-980. The circuits have split two ways concerning whether a company’s disclosure in the “Risk Factors” section of an SEC filing is misleading if it warns that a risk may or could materialize when that risk has already transpired at the time the company spoke. The First, Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits hold that it is misleading to disclose that a risk may or could materialize when that risk has already transpired. The Sixth Circuit has adopted a second, outlier position that such disclosures are never misleading. The question is thus whether the Court should resolve the conflict. (i) ll PARTIES The parties before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit were: Plumbers Local #290 Pension Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant Root, Inc., Defendant-Appellee Alexander Timm, Defendant-Appellee Daniel Rosenthal, Defendant-Appellee Megan Binkley, Defendant-Appellee Christopher Olsen, Defendant-Appellee Doug Ulman, Defendant-Appellee Elliot Geidt, Defendant-Appellee Jerri DeVard, Defendant-Appellee Larry Hilsheimer, Defendant-Appellee Luis von Ahn, Defendant-Appellee Nancy Kramer, Defendant-Appellee Nick Shalek, Defendant-Appellee Scott Maw, Defendant-Appellee Barclays Capital Inc., Defendant-Appellee Goldman Sachs & Company LLC, Defendant-Appellee Morgan Stanley & Company LLC, Defendant-Appellee Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Defendant-Appellee