Background A bank failed to report certain overdue loans, although three regulators — the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, and Office of Thrift Supervision — purportedly required the disclosure. After the failure, the Government charged executives of the bank for securities fraud and making false statements to regulators, alleging the bank falsely reported the loans. On appeal, Defendants argued that the regulators’ reporting requirements were ambiguous as each regulator had described its reporting requirement slightly differently than the other. Holding The Court reversed Defendants’ false-statement convictions and entered judgments of acquittal. The Court determined that, when such reporting requirements are ambiguous, the Government must prove falsity under each objectively reasonable interpretation of the reporting requirement. Alternatively, the Government must prove that its interpretation is the only objectively reasonable one.