In a matter of first impression, the Second Circuit recently affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Securities Act claims in Knapp v. Barclays PLC, No. 25-1631, 2026 WL 806009 (2d Cir. Mar. 24, 2026). The court concluded that (1) a reverse split did not constitute a “sale” under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, and (2) a supplemental pricing statement was not sufficiently traceable to establish Section 11 liability. This holding cabins the scope of Securities Act liability and provides meaningful defenses for defendants facing similar challenges.
Background
Plaintiffs held exchange-traded notes (ETNs). These ETNs were subsequently condensed through a 4:1 “reverse split” that swapped every four outstanding notes for a single note of equal value. Knapp, 2026 WL 806009 at *1.