On October 15, 2024, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Utah granting a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against an online retailer (the “Company”), its former CEO, and other senior management at the Company. The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. v. Overstock.com, Inc., et al., No. 21-4126 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 2024). Plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On September 30, 2024, Judge Lynn Adelman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9, against a retail department store chain (the “Company”) and certain of its officers and board members (“Individual Defendants” and, collectively, “Defendants”). Thomas Frame v. Kohl’s Corp., No. 22-CV-1016 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 30, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants made materially misleading statements and omissions in order to stave off a hostile takeover by an activist investment firm. The Court held that plaintiff failed to identify a single actionable misstatement or omission and, therefore, dismissed the action without prejudice. 

On October 2, 2024, Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a putative class action against a pool equipment company (the “Company”), its private equity majority shareholders, an investment advisor for one of the private equity firms, and two of the Company’s senior executives (the “Individual Defendants”) alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5. City of Southfield Fire & Police Ret. Sys. v. Hayward Holdings, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-04146 (WJM) (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2024). The Court dismissed the complaint because it did not plead with specificity which portions of the Company’s or Individual Defendants’ statements were actionable, why they were actionable, or whether the Individual Defendants acted with the required state of mind.

On September 27, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an electric utility, its parent company, and certain of their executives. Jastram v. NextEra Energy, Inc., No. 23-cv-80833, slip. op. (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2024), ECF No. 118. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made misrepresentations in response to claims in the media that the utility used corporate funds to influence state and local elections, targeted elected officials who opposed its initiatives, employed a news outlet to support its efforts against these officials, and intimidated journalists. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege loss causation and therefore dismissed the action with prejudice.

On September 30, 2024, Judge Franklin U. Valderrama of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an airplane manufacturing company and certain of its executives. Seeks v. The Boeing Company, No. 19‑2394, 2024 WL 4367846 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the company had made misrepresentations in public statements regarding the safety of its airplanes and in connection with two accidents involving company airplanes. After prior claims were dismissed without prejudice, plaintiffs added detail in support of their claims. The Court held that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged falsity as to certain statements but not others and that scienter was adequately alleged.

On September 30, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied class certification in a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a mortgage company and certain of its executives. Shupe v. Rocket Cos. Inc., No. 1:21-cv-11528, slip op. (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2024), ECF No. 227. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made misrepresentations regarding the financial health of the company. The Court held that class certification was inappropriate for multiple reasons, but critically held that defendants had successfully rebutted the presumption of reliance afforded by Basic Inc.v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988)—by demonstrating that the alleged misrepresentations did not impact the company’s stock price—and thus individual issues of reliance would predominate, precluding class certification.

On September 30, 2024, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against a social media company and certain of its executives. Ohio Public Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., 2024 WL 4353049 (N.D. Cal. 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding various business operations. Although it dismissed claims relating to certain statements, the Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged that others were false or misleading and that plaintiffs had adequately alleged scienter and loss causation.

On September 25, 2024, Judge Orelia E. Merchant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against an online clothing rental company (the “Company”) and the Company’s underwriters and certain officers, directors and other related individuals. Rajat Sharma v. Rent the Runway, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2024).Plaintiffs asserted claims on behalf of a putative class of investors who allegedly purchased shares in the Company’s IPO, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Items 105 and 303 promulgated thereunder.

On September 6, 2024, Judge Robert Pitman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed a putative securities class action against a family of corporations (“Corporate Defendants”) that, together, control and operate a decentralized cryptocurrency exchange and blockchain protocol (the “Protocol”), and its individual founders (the “Individual Defendants” and together “Defendants”), asserting claims under Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), Sections 5, 10(b), 15(a)(1) and 29(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants touted complete protection from losses to investments in the Protocol in order to attract investors, which ultimately proved illusory when a surge of withdrawals from the Protocol’s exchange strained its liquidity and caused investors to suffer significant losses. S. Magistrate Judge Mark Lane found in a Report & Recommendation, dated July 31, 2024 (“R&R”), that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants and that the federal securities laws are inapplicable to the transactions at issue, and recommended that the suit be dismissed in its entirety.  Reviewing the R&R de novo, Judge Pitman adopted its reasoning and dismissed the suit without prejudice.  Basic et. al. v. BProtocol Foundation et. al., A-23-CV-533-RP, (W.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2024). 

On September 13, 2024, Judge K. Michael Moore of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a complaint alleging that an equity fund (the “Company”), its affiliate companies, and several directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5. Kosowsky v. Icahn Enterprises L.P., et al., 1:23-cv-21773-KMM (S.D.Fla. Sep 13, 2024). According to plaintiffs, defendants allegedly engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the Company stock price by issuing dividends while supposedly concealing key financial information from investors to support the Company’s majority shareholder’s personal borrowing and financial interests. The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege any material misstatement or omission or facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter. 

On August 19, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, putative class action claims brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 because they were based on a “pure omissions” theory. Moab Partners, L.P., v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., No. 21-2524, 2024 WL 3867669 (2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2024). As addressed in our prior post, the Supreme Court held that, contrary to prior authority in the Second Circuit, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder do not impose an affirmative duty to disclose information but rather only require information to be disclosed if necessary to make other statements clear and complete.

On August 16, 2024, Judge Federico A. Morena of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against an NFT company, certain of its affiliates, and their celebrity promoter. Harper v. O’Neal, No. 23-21912, 2024 WL 3845444 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants had impermissibly engaged in the offer and sale of unregistered securities when they promoted a collection of non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) allegedly designed to be used in a virtual world (or “metaverse”) that the company planned to build. The Court held that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that a celebrity promoter of the NFTs was a “seller” under Section 12 of the Securities Act, but that certain allegations were time-barred, and the promoter was not a “control person” under Section 15 of the Securities Act.

On September 12, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a trial court decision that had rejected a bank’s assertion of the in pari delicto defense to aiding and abetting claims brought by the bankruptcy trustee for a debtor that had allegedly perpetrated a Ponzi scheme. Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2024 WL 4158179 (8th Cir. Sept. 12, 2024). The trustee alleged various claims under Minnesota law against the bank, including a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that employees of the bank’s predecessor-in-interest knew about the Ponzi scheme, ignored money‑laundering alerts, and allowed the company to overdraft more money than permitted under bank policy. The trial court held that the in pari delicto defense was unavailable because the company had previously been placed in receivership before filing for bankruptcy; the jury then found the bank liable and awarded more than $550 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the bankruptcy trustee stood in the shoes of the debtor, including with respect to the in pari delicto defense, even if under Minnesota law the defense could not have been asserted against a receiver while the company was in receivership.

On August 12, 2024, Judge David C. Godbey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action alleging that an oil company (the “Company”) and a former senior manager violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Yoshikawa v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:21-CV-0194-N (N.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2024). According to plaintiffs, the former manager allegedly artificially inflated the net present value (“NPV”) of certain oil and gas assets by using impossible drilling assumptions so that the valuation could support publicly-stated production forecasts. The Court denied defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding, among other things, that the complaint adequately alleged that the inflated valuation was incorporated into public statements.

On August 26, 2024, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against a financial technology company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers. In re Affirm Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., 22-cv-07770-AMO (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements regarding its ability to manage interest rate risks and the impact of rising interest rates on its business. The Court held that plaintiff failed to allege facts that raised a strong inference that defendants made those alleged misstatements with scienter and dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice.

On September 3, 2024, Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and its CEO and CFO. Kranthi Gorlamari v. Verrica Pharm., Inc., et al., No. 22-cv-2226 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 3, 2024). Plaintiff asserted claims on behalf of a putative class of investors in the Company under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Court denied in part the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and allowed certain claims to proceed on the basis of confidential witness allegations. In doing so, the Court refused to consider at the motion to dismiss stage declarations from those purported confidential witnesses, submitted by defendants, in which the witnesses recanted the purported statements attributed to them in the complaint, and the Court credited those allegations in finding that a strong inference of scienter was sufficiently alleged by the complaint.

On September 3, 2024, Judge Rita F. Lin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a technology and digital advertising company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers. Ami-Government Employees Provident Fund Mgmt. Company LTD., et al., v. Alphabet Inc., et al., No. 23-cv-01186-RFL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making false and misleading statements about the Company’s digital advertising technology products and the competitiveness of the advertising technology market in general. The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity and scienter.

On August 9, 2024, Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a producer of plant-based meat substitutes (the “Company”) and three of its officers. Saskatchewan Healthcare Emp.s’ Pension Plan v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., 23-03602-MWF (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2024). Plaintiff asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on defendants’ alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company’s ability to scale production to meet its partners’ demands. The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege falsity and scienter.

On August 14, 2024, Judge Michael T. Liburdi of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted with leave to amend a motion to dismiss a shareholder derivative suit brought in the name of the company, a buyer and seller of residential properties (the “Company”), against numerous current and former directors and officers of the Company as well as directors of the special purpose acquisition company—or SPAC—through which the Company went public (the “Individual Defendants”). Gera v. Palihapitiya, et al., CV-23-02164-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2024). Plaintiff asserted a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 14a-9 thereunder.

On July 29, 2024, Judge Trina L. Thompson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action brought by investors against a financial services company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers (the “Individual Defendants” and, collectively “Defendants”) asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  SEB Inv. Mgmt., AB v. Wells Fargo & Co., Case No. 22-cv-03811-TLT (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2024). 

On August 8, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’s dismissal of a putative securities class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 against an electric vehicle company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  In re CCIV / Lucid Motors Sec. Litig., No. 23-16049 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023). 

On July 17, 2024, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a cannabis company and three of its officers. In re Canopy Growth Securities Litigation, 23 Civ. 4302 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making false and misleading statements about the financial prospects of the Company’s newly acquired sports drink subsidiary (the “Subsidiary”). The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter.

On June 25, 2024, Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied in large part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against an internet-based educational platform that sells online classes and certain of its senior officers. Zequi Wu, et al. v. GSX Techedu Inc., et al., No. 20-4457 (MEF) (JRA) (D.N.J. June 25, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false statements that misled investors about defendants’ inclusion of fake “bot” students in enrollment numbers to inflate the company’s revenue. The Court in large part denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged numerous false statements and scienter.

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark decision overturning its prior decision Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (“Chevron”). Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Raimondo Secretary of Commerce, et al., and Relentless Inc., et al. v. Department of Commerce, et al., 603 U.S. ___ (2024). For the past 40 years, Chevron mandated that, when a statute does not expressly delegate authority to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question, courts defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes which the agency is charged with administering, if such interpretation was “permissible,” which has generally been interpreted to mean reasonable. There has been some subsequent narrowing of the scope of Chevron deference by the Supreme Court, for example to agency interpretations reached through formal proceedings with the force of law (see United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 230 (2001)). In a 6-3 ruling delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court expressly overruled Chevron, holding that the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) requires courts to exercise independent judgment in determining whether a federal agency has acted within its statutory authority, and that courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law merely because a statute is ambiguous. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the Chief Justice’s opinion.

On July 2, 2024, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a cybersecurity company and certain of its officers.  In re SentinelOne, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 23-cv-2786-HSG (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2024).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants artificially inflated key business metrics in its SEC filings, necessitating a downward revision of revenue and projection figures.  The Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice, primarily for lack of scienter.

On July 1, 2024, Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a drug-development company and certain of its officers.  State Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Charles River Lab. Int’l, Inc., No. 23-cv-11132-DJC (D. Mass. July 1, 2024).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants misled investors to believe that the company complied with all applicable laws in its importation of endangered non-human primates (“NHPs”) for animal testing of biologic pharmaceuticals.  The Court dismissed the action, holding that plaintiff failed to identify any actionable statement or omission in the company’s filings or to adequately allege that defendants acted with the requisite scienter.

On June 24, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted with prejudice a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a coffee chain and two of its executive officers.Rein v. Dutch Bros, Inc., et al., No. 23-cv-1794 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024).Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making a series of false and misleading statements touting the company’s performance in a manner that understated the threat to sales and profitability presented by rising inflation affecting the cost of commodities key to the company’s success.The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege materially false or misleading statements and scienter.

On July 2, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a biotechnology company, its CEO, and its Chief Development Officer (“CDO”).  Quinones v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc., —F.4th—, 2024 WL 3275030 (1st Cir. 2024).  Plaintiffs alleged the company made misrepresentations regarding clinical trials for the company’s treatment for severe sensorineural hearing loss.  The district court determined that plaintiffs’ amended complaint adequately alleged certain misstatements but failed to demonstrate that those statements were made with the required degree of scienter, and on that basis dismissed the amended complaint.  The First Circuit affirmed both rulings.

On June 10, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative shareholders’ class action against a real estate company (the “Company”) and several of its directors (the “Individual Defendants”), asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Maso Cap. Invs. Ltd. v. E-House (China) Holdings Ltd., No. 22-355 (2d Cir. June 10, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged the Company made false and misleading statements and omissions to entice approval of a go-private merger with a buyer group comprised of the Individual Defendants. The district court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss. Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, the Court affirmed finding that plaintiffs failed to identify a single actionable statement or omission.

On June 17, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversing the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and to address the following questions: “1. Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents”; and “2. Whether plaintiffs can satisfy the PSLRA’s falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.” 

On June 10, 2024, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that partially reinstated a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act against a social media company. Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, —S. Ct.—, 2024 WL 2883752 (2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations relating to the misuse of user data by a third party. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the following question: “Are risk disclosures false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm?”

On May 31, 2024, Judge Julie S. Sneed of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against an autonomous vehicle technology company (the “Company”), certain of its officers, and an officer of one of the Company’s subsidiaries. Alms v. Luminar Technologies, Inc., et al, No. 6:23-cv-982-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by allegedly making false statements in an investor presentation regarding plans to economize its newly developed technology. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead a false statement of a material fact and scienter.

On May 22, 2024, Judge Cecilia M. Altonoga of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a motion to dismiss a putative shareholder action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a French company that provides outsourced content-moderation services for social media platforms (the “Company”) and certain of its former executives (the “Individual Defendants”). City of Warren Gen. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Teleperformance SE, No. 23-cv-24580 (S.D. Fla. May 22, 2024). The complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements about the treatment and training of the Company’s content moderators and the Company’s plan to exit the “highly egregious portion” of the content-moderation business. Judge Altonoga dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that plaintiffs did not adequately plead as a threshold matter that they purchased the Company’s shares within the United States and that plaintiffs had engaged in improper “puzzle pleading” in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). Nevertheless, construing the complaint generously and relying on the parties’ briefing to organize the alleged misstatements, the Court identified several alleged misstatements that would be actionable, as pled, in an amended complaint with the noted deficiencies cured. 

On May 16, 2024, Judge James L. Robart of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a manufacturer of pop culture collectibles (the “Company”) and certain of its former executives (the “Individual Defendants”). Studen v. Funko, Inc., No. C23-0824JLR (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2024). The complaint alleged that the Company failed to disclose accurate information regarding the risks associated with its infrastructure projects and inventory in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). Judge Robart dismissed the complaint, holding that plaintiffs did not adequately plead falsity or offer any particularized allegations showing that defendants knew that the risks could or did occur. 

On May 23, 2024, the United States Supreme Court held that if parties’ agreements conflict as to whether a dispute is subject to arbitration, then a court (not an arbitrator) must decide which contract controls. Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, --- S.Ct. ----, 2024 WL 2333424 (2024).

On May 10, 2024, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a global footwear and apparel company (“the Company”), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters involved in the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”). Shnayder v. Allbirds, Inc., No. 23-cv-01811-AMO, 2024 BL 161312 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2024). Plaintiffs brought claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), alleging false and misleading statements in connection with the Company’s IPO. The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege which statements were allegedly false or misleading.

On May 14, 2024, Judge Rita F. Lin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a ridesharing company (the “Company”) and its CEO and former CFO (collectively, “defendants”). Cao et al. v. Uber Techs., Inc., et al., No. 22-cv-04688-RFL (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly making false statements in the Company’s post-IPO Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) certifications attached to the Company’s quarterly and annual reports for 2019 and 2020, and during its annual general meeting on May 11, 2020.

On May 7, 2024, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative shareholders’ class action against a pharmaceutical company (“Company”) and certain of its executives (“Individual Defendants”), alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Sneed v. AcelRx Pharms., Inc., No. 21-cv-4353-BLF (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged the Company made false or misleading statements in marketing materials of one of its products in order to expand the target market, putting the Company at risk to adverse action by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). The Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter and that further amendment would be futile.

On April 29, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a putative class action asserting claims under the Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that a car insurance technology company (the “Company”), certain of its officers, and the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) misled investors in the Company’s initial public offering materials. Kolominsky v. Root, Inc., No. 23-3392 (6th Cir. Apr. 29, 2024). Reviewing the district court decision de novo, the Court held that the complaint sounded in fraud and that the heightened pleading standard required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applied to the Securities Act claims and that the challenged statements were not actionable because they were based either on past performance and historical data or protected by the “Bespeaks Caution” doctrine. 

On April 30, 2024, Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed with leave to amend a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a medical device company and certain of its former officers. Lowe v. Tandem Diabetes Care Inc., 2024 WL 1898473 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding the demand for its products. The Court held plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that any challenged statement was false at the time it was made and also failed to adequately allege scienter.

On May 1, 2024, Judge Arun Subramanian of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York largely denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a manufacturer of dental products and certain of its former executives. San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund v. Dentsply Sirona Inc., –—F. Supp. 3d—, 2024 WL 1898512 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged the company made misrepresentations regarding its inventory, supply chain, product quality, and overall financial health. The Court held that plaintiffs’ allegations were largely sufficient as to the required elements of falsity, scienter, and loss causation, but the Court dismissed allegations regarding certain alleged misrepresentations and claims against one former executive.

On April 19, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a consolidated putative securities class action alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against an information services company and certain of its executives. Espy v. J2 Global, Inc., et al., No. 22-55829 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2024). The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”), holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead scienter. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead scienter and loss causation.

On April 18, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of and reinstated a putative shareholders’ class action against an amusement park company (the Company”) and certain of its executives, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Okla. Firefighters & Pension Ret. Sys. v. Six Flags Entm’t Corp., No. 23-10696 (5th Cir. Apr. 18, 2024). The district court granted the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that plaintiff lacked standing because it purchased Company shares too late to have relied on any actionable misstatements, and therefore dismissed the action with prejudice. Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, the Court reversed, finding that plaintiffs’ economic loss was fairly traceable to the alleged misconduct because the Company’s alleged fraud had not been fully disclosed when plaintiff purchased the stock. We previously covered the district court’s decision here.

On April 15, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in a non-precedential summary order the summary judgment dismissal of securities fraud claims against a pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In re Mylan N.V. Sec. Litig., No. 23-720-cv (2d Cir. Apr. 15, 2024). Reviewing the district court decision de novo, the Court held that appellants waived their argument related to scienter and that their failure to disaggregate the losses caused by the Company’s alleged omissions warranted summary judgment for defendants. 

On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which held that Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 permitted a private right of action based solely on an issuer’s alleged failure to disclose a known trend or uncertainty required to be disclosed under Item 303 of Regulation S‑K. Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., —U.S.—, 2024 WL 1588706 (2024). As explained in our prior post addressing the oral argument before the Supreme Court, the case concerned whether a company that operates a portfolio of infrastructure-related businesses needed to disclose that a proposed regulation by a United Nations agency would negatively impact one of its subsidiary’s businesses. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sotomayor explained that the “pure omission” of information required to be disclosed by Item 303—i.e., a situation where there is no allegation that the omission rendered any affirmative statement misleading—is insufficient to support a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.

On April 5, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a company that licenses children’s entertainment content and certain of its officers. In re Genius Brands Int’l, Inc. Sec. Litig., —F.4th—, 2024 WL 1473942 (9th Cir. 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the company made actionable misstatements after it was told that its shares would be delisted from the NASDAQ exchange. The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged that the company’s conduct rendered certain challenged statements misleading, that plaintiffs adequately alleged loss causation for certain claims, and that one claim was appropriately dismissed for failure to plead loss causation.

On April 9, 2024, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a technology company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and related corporate entities. Mehedi v. View, Inc., 2024 WL 1560009 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2024). Lead plaintiff alleged that the company materially misstated its financial results. The Court held that lead plaintiff could not establish loss causation and therefore lacked standing to pursue claims on behalf of the putative class, requiring the case to be dismissed in its entirety.

On March 30, 2024, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a biotechnology company that develops and sells skin treatment drugs and certain of its officers. Aramic LLC, et al. v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc., No. 21-cv-0985-AMO (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2024). Plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of investors in the Company, alleged that defendants made false or misleading statements about the timing and likelihood of FDA approval of the Company’s drug in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court dismissed the amended complaint, finding that plaintiff failed to allege that most of the challenged statements were false or misleading and that plaintiff in any event failed to allege adequately scienter.

On March 30, 2024, Judge Victoria Marie Calvert of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against an optical retail company and certain of its executive officers (the “Individual Defendants”). City of Southfield General Employees Retirement Sys. v. National Vision Holdings, et al., No. 23-cv-00425-VMC (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding staffing and wage pressures faced by the Company leading up to and through the Covid-19 pandemic. The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead falsity and scienter. 

On April 4, 2024, the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (the “First Department”) affirmed dismissal of a securities class action against a mass media and entertainment company (the “Company”) and two of its executives (the “Individual Defendants”), and affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the denial of the motions to dismiss filed by the underwriters of the offerings at issue (the “Underwriters”). Camelot Event Driven Fund, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al., No. 2023-00983 (1st Dep’t Apr. 4, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) by concealing certain information from the offering materials issued in connection with the Company’s March 2021 secondary and initial offerings (the “Offerings”).