Opinion ID: 4521757
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Misrepresentation/Omission Claims

Text: We likewise agree with the district court that the Complaint fails to state a claim for misrepresentation or omission in violation of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b). As the district court’s order thoroughly documents, none of the statements identified in the Complaint constitute a material misrepresentation or omission, and the statements are therefore not actionable. For example, many of these statements are merely vague — such as Top Ships’ statement that the funds raised via the purchase agreements would be used “for general corporate purposes,” J.A. 215 — or indefinite — such as the risk disclaimer that shareholders “may experience significant dilution” due to the purchase agreements, J.A. 226 (emphasis added). Alone, such disclosures are not actionable misrepresentations. See, e.g., Wilson, 671 F.3d at 133. Plaintiffs also point again to the defendants’ failure to disclose the full extent or scope of their “scheme,” such as by not disclosing the fact that Top Ships and the Kalani defendants had agreed at the outset to the issuance of shares equal to the entire amount authorized, rather than only a portion. But this claim fails for the same reason as the market manipulation claim: Nowhere do Plaintiffs plead with the requisite particularity that there was any such agreement or that the defendants otherwise knew that their disclosures to the market were materially inaccurate or incomplete. Because each of the identified alleged misrepresentations or omissions is not actionable, we agree that dismissal of these claims was appropriate.