On May 7, 2026, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed federal securities claims against a large cryptocurrency exchange (the “Company”) and its CEO (collectively, “Defendants”) and compelled the remaining claims to arbitration.  Joel Heabeart, et al., v. Coinbase, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-9197-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2026).  

On April 21, 2026, Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied class certification in a putative class action brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against a battery technology company (“Company”) and its directors and officers.  The Court denied class certification, holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a presumption of reliance under Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) (“Basic”), because defendants proved the alleged misstatement did not impact the price of the Company’s stock.

On April 30, 2026, Judge Brett H. Ludwig of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against an energy products company (the “Company”), and its CEO and CFO (the “Individual Defendants”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Tampa Bay v. Generac Holdings Inc., et al., No. 22-cv-1436 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 30, 2026). 

On May 6, 2026, Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss a proposed securities class action against a semiconductor company (the “Company”) and its former CEO and CFO (“Individual Defendants,” and, collectively, the “Defendants.”).  Cesar Nunez v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00411-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2026).

On May 19, 2026, Judge Rita F. Lin 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 securities fraud class action against a voice-recognition technology company (the “Company”), and its CEO and CFO (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 promulgated thereunder.  St. John Family Trust, et al. v. SoundHound AI, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02915 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2026).

On May 28, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act against a clothing retailer and certain of its officers.  Smith v. Gap, Inc., —F.4th—, 2026 WL 1502033 (2d Cir. May 28, 2026).

On May 29, 2026, Judge Edward S. Kiel of the United States District Cout for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against a telecommunications provider (the “Company”) and several of its officers (collectively, the “Defendants”) asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v. Verizon Comms., Inc., No. 23-cv-05218-ESK-AMD (D.N.J. May 29, 2026).

On March 31, 2026, Judge Margo Brodie of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against an exercise equipment company (the “Company”) and its officers and directors for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Tian v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., 23-cv-4279-MKB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2026). 

On March 31, 2026, Judge Manish S. Shah of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in large part and denied in part a motion to dismiss claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an airplane manufacturer (the “Company”) and four of its former officers. College Retirement Equities Funds v. The Boeing Company, No. 22 CV 3845 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2026).

On March 4, 2026, Judge Chad F. Kenney of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims against a global pharmaceutical and biotechnology company and certain of its executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund v. GSK plc, 2026 WL 602784 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2026).

On February 23, 2026, Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied in part a motion to dismiss a securities fraud putative class action against a cloud-based call center operation software company (the “Company”) and two of its officers—its CEO and former CFO (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 promulgated thereunder.  Lucid Alternative Fund, LP v. Five9, Inc., No. 24-cv-08725-PCP (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026).

On February 26, 2026, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a purported securities class action brought against a footwear and apparel company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers, directors, and underwriters.  Shnayder v. Allbirds, Inc., No. 23-cv-01811 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026).  

On February 11, 2026, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss with prejudice a proposed securities class action against a solar energy company (the “Company”) and its former CEO and CFO (collectively, the “Defendants”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Menon v. Maxeon Solar Techs., Ltd., No. 24-cv-03869-EMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2026).  

On February 10, 2026, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted a motion to dismiss a proposed securities class action against a vehicle and bicycle components manufacturer (the “Company”) and several of its current and former officers (collectively, the “Defendants”), alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  Marselis v. Fox Factory Holding Corp., No. 1:24-CV-00747-TWT (N.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2026).

On February 5, 2026, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against a company that operates mobile content platforms in China, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the company’s initial and secondary public offerings (the “IPO” and “SPO”). In re Qutoutiao, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2026 WL 309234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2026).

On January 21, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio of a putative securities class action against a financial services company (the “Company”) and three of its officers (collectively, the “Defendants”).  Newtyn Partners, LP v. Alliance Data Sys. Corp., No. 25-3313 (6th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026). 

On January 22, 2026, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by an electric automobile company (the “Company”) and several of its officers (together, the “Defendants”) in a securities class action alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Ind. Pub. Ret. Sys. v. Rivian Auto., Inc., No. 2:24-cv-4566-CBM-JPR (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2026). 

On January 16, 2026, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald 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 against a manufacturer of dental products and certain of its executives.  In re Dentsply Sirona, Inc. Sec. Litig., ––F. Supp. 3d––, 2026 WL 124581 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2026).

On January 15, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of two actions brought by an investment advisor and an investment company asserting claims under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) against certain financial institutions.  LJM Partners, LTD., et al. v. Barclays Capital, Inc., et al., --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 114648 (7th Cir. Jan. 15, 2026). 

On January 12, 2026, Judge Robert Pitman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a cybersecurity company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives (the “Individual Defendants”) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In re Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 24-cv-00857-RP (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2026).  

On November 26, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reinstated a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an electric utility company, its parent company, and certain of their executives. Jastram v. NextEra Energy, LLC., No. 24-13372 (11th Cir. Nov. 26, 2025), ECF No. 51-1.

On December 10, 2025, Judge Noël Wise of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action asserting claims against a payment technology company (the “Company”) and certain of its executive officers (the “Individual Defendants”) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Beibei Cai v. Visa Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-08220 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2025).

On November 20, 2025, Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against a social media platform (the “Company”) and its chief executive officer (the “CEO” and, collectively, “Defendants”) under Sections 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5. Hollingsworth v. Nextdoor Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 5:24-cv-1213-EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025).

On November 19, 2025, Judge John H. Chun of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington pared the allegations in a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a global coffee retailer and certain of its current and former executives. Garbaccio v. Starbucks Corp., ––F. Supp. 3d––, 2025 WL 3228275 (W.D. Wash. 2025).

On November 7, 2025, Judge John G. Koeltl of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion for leave to amend a putative securities class action complaint asserting claims against a software company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers (the “Individual Defendants”) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In re Adobe Inc., No. 23-cv-9260 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2025).

On September 30, 2025, Judge Steven D. Grimberg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia substantially denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action arising out of the spinoff of a uniform-rental and workplace supplies company (the “Company”) from its former parent (the “Parent”).  Plumbers, Pipefitters & Apprentices Loc. No. 112 Pension Fund v. Vestis Corp., No. 1:24-cv-02175-SDG (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2025).  

On October 2, 2025, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a cybersecurity company (the “Company”) and its CEO and former CFO (the “Individual Defendants” and, collectively, the “Defendants”).  In re SentinelOne, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 4:23-cv-02786 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2025).  

On October 6, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a Spanish construction company, its former CEO, and the underwriters of its initial public offering of American Depository Shares (“ADSs”).  Sherman v. Abengoa, S.A., ––F.4th––, 2025 WL 2825369 (2d Cir. 2025).  

On September 29, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a district court order dismissing a putative securities class action against a natural food and personal care company (the “Company”) and certain of its current and former executive officers. Gimpel v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., No. 23-7612 (2d Cir. Sept. 29, 2025).

On September 30, 2025, Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a fashion e-commerce company (the “Company”), its subsidiary, as well as certain of the Company’s executive officers (the “Individual Defendants”). In re Farfetch Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 23-cv-10982 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2025).

On September 12, 2025, Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied a motion to dismiss a proposed securities class action against a software company (the “Company”).  Sohovich v. Avalara, Inc., No. C22-1580 MJP (W.D. Wash. Sept. 12, 2025).  

On September 15, 2025, Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a semiconductor manufacturer (the “Company”) and its CEO and CFO (the “Executives” and, collectively, the “Defendants”).  In re STMicroelectronics N.V. Sec. Litig., 24 Civ. 6370 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2025).

On September 17, 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a policy statement announcing that, when considering a request by a company to accelerate the effectiveness of its registration statement, the Commission’s decision will not be affected by whether the company has a provision in its governing documents requiring arbitration of investor claims under the federal securities laws. SEC Policy Statement, https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/policy/33-11389.pdf.

On September 16, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of seven coordinated putative class actions asserting insider trading claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against certain hedge fund counterparties in connection with trading activity surrounding the hedge fund’s collapse.  In re Archegos 20A Litig.,—F.4th—, 2025 WL 2652262 (2d Cir. 2025). 

On August 13, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated a district court order granting class certification in a putative securities class action against an electric services company (the “Company”) and certain of its current or former executive officers and directors.  In re FirstEnergy Corp. Sec. Litig., Nos. 23-3940/3943/3945/3946/3947 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).