Hutchings v. Direct Digital Holdings — 5th Cir. (Aug 6, 2026)
The Fifth Circuit hears Hutchings versus Direct Digital Holdings. Donald Hutchings appeals the dismissal of a securities-fraud complaint. He says Direct Digital explained a revenue miss by citing softer demand and its move away from browser cookies, but left out an eight-point-eight-million-dollar short payment from a major customer. The appeal asks whether those explanations were misleading half-truths, meaning statements made deceptive by what they omit, and whether the complaint adequately pleads scienter, meaning intent to deceive or severe recklessness. Kristen O'Connor of Johnson Fistel represents Hutchings. She will argue that the omitted customer dispute went to the heart of the business and made the company's explanations misleading. Tony Lucisano of Baker Botts represents Direct Digital and its executives. He will argue that the company identified the primary causes of the miss, had no duty to disclose the disputed payment, and that the complaint does not support an inference of fraud.
Hutchings v. Direct Digital Holdings (No. 25-20379) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 6, 2026.
- 0:00Introduction