Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

> And so what happened in Slack is that, on the first day, roughly 118 million shares were available for sale under Slack’s registration statement, and roughly 165 million shares were available for sale without registration. And if you bought stock, there was no way to know which kind of stock you bought: You didn’t buy directly from the company in an IPO process; you just bought on the stock exchange from an anonymous counterparty. If you bought “registered shares,” then technically you are allowed to sue Slack under section 11, just like in an IPO; if you bought “unregistered shares,” then you are not, just like in a mature public company. But there is no way of knowing which one you bought, so in practice you can’t sue under section 11.

I don't see how this is materially different from Axios' analysis?

1. Instead of a traditional IPO, Slack went public through an alternative process called a direct listing.

2. As part of its direct listing, Slack sold some million "registered" and some million "unregistered" shares.

3. What are registered and unregistered shares? I could not find an explanation on Wikipedia.

4. Fiyyaz Pirrani purchased some number of shares, but later complained that Slack had misrepresented something in its declarations before going public. He filed suit against the company.

5. SCOTUS says that because Fiyyaz Pirrani could not tell which of his shares were registered and which were unregistered, he could not prove standing(?)

6. This problem would not have arisen with an IPO (because?). On the other hand, similar doubts will arise with all future direct listings, making investors hesitant to purchase shares in the corresponding companies.

Is this an accurate assessment? What are registered and unregistered shares?

I really don't see how anyone that actually reads Supreme Court decisions calls this court illegitimate. They are very consistent about not being a super legislature, no matter how disruptive that happens to be. While the prior court seems to have been acting ... more like one? Its the opposite of how the media and discourse has been, but every time I read a case I just can't reach that conclusion.

I just don't think this observation will be considered controversial in history books, compared to now.

Congress can't reach consensus and doesn't understand the most holistic thing to do. The court stopped picking up the slack for Congress and wouldn't have been doing so before in a system with actual checks and balances. Isn't that a plainer reading of what's happening?