On September 2, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit amended its opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the dismissal of a putative securities fraud class action against a manufacturer of pop culture collectibles (the “Company”), and its former CEO and former CFO, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Constr. Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko Inc., No. 24-4909 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2026).  

On August 10, 2026, Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a food safety company (the “Company”), its then-President and CEO, and its then-CFO (collectively, “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.  Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund, et al. v. Neogen Corporation, et al., No. 1:25-cv-802 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2026).

On August 7, 2026, Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against three executives of a healthcare services company (the “Company”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Skrypski v. Sampson, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00306 (D. Colo. Aug. 7, 2026).

On August 11, 2026, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a digital technology services company (the “Company”), and four of its current and former officers (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.  Sarria v. TELUS International (CDA) Inc., No. 25 Civ. 889 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2026).

On June 5, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed in part a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing a putative securities fraud class action against a consumer robotics company (the “Company”) and certain former and current executives (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.  Premca Extra Income Fund LP v. Angle, et al., No. 25-1192 (1st Cir. June 5, 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 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 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 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 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 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 July 30, 2025, Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a drug manufacturing company (the “Company”) and its CEO and CFO (the “Individual Defendants” and, together, the “Defendants”) for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Feldman v. Scynexis, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-22082 (BRM) (CLW) (D.N.J. July 30, 2025).  

On July 24, 2025, Judge Jennifer Murphy of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action brought against a life insurance company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers.  Donald C. Meade v. Lincoln Nat’l Corp., et al., No. 24-cv-1704 (E.D. Pa. July 24, 2025).

On July 23, 2025, Judge John P. Cronan of the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action brought against an artificial intelligence (AI) company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  In re UiPath, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 24-cv-4702 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2025).

On June 6, 2025, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted without prejudice a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a developer of modular power components and power systems (the “Company”) and its chief executive officer asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  In re Vicor Sec. Litig., No. 24-cv-4196-RS (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2025).

On June 16, 2025, Chief Judge David C. Godbey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed a putative securities class action against a telecommunications company (the “Company”) and several of its executives (the “Individual Defendants”) asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  In re AT&T Sec. Litig., No. 3:24-CV-01196-N (N.D. Tex. June 16, 2025).

On June 3, 2025, Judge Jacqueline S. Corley of the Northern District of California granted in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action brought against a medical devices company (the “Company”), its CEO, and certain other of its officers. Glazing Emps. & Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Ret. Fund v. iRhythm Techs., Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-706 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2025).

On May 9, 2025, Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a purported securities class action against a grocery delivery company (the “Company”), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters to the Company’s IPO.  Stephens v. Maplebear Inc. (d/b/a Instacart), et al., No. 5:24-cv-00465-EJD (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2025). 

On April 28, 2025, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative securities fraud class action asserting claims against a solar panel manufacturer (the “Company”) and several of its executives under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5. Menon v. Maxeon Solar Techs., Ltd., et al., No. 24-cv-03869-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2025).

On May 5, 2025, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a proposed class action asserting claims against a biopharmaceutical 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.  Klobus v. Akero Therapeutics, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-02534-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2025).  

On April 18, 2025, Judge André Birotte Jr. of the Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, against a healthcare technology company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers (the “Individual Defendants”).  Barsuli v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-3282-AB (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2025).

On March 27, 2025, Judge John G. Koeltl of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims against a software company and certain of its officers (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 Adobe Inc., No. 23-cv-9260 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025).

On March 24, 2025, 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 class action against a technology company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers.  Ami-Government Emps. Provident Fund Mgmt. Co. LTD., et al., v. Alphabet Inc., et al., No. 23-cv-01186-RFL (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2025).  

On March 7, 2025, Judge John P. Cronan of the Southern District of New York granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against a Chinese software company (the “Company”) and certain of its directors, officers, and underwriters.  Lian v. Tuya Inc., et al., 22-cv-6792 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2025).  

On January 27, 2025, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York partially 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 (the “Exchange Act”) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against an e-commerce platform (the “Company”), the underwriter of its IPO, and certain of its officers and directors.  In re Gigacloud Tech. Inc. Sec. Litig., 23-cv-10645-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2025).  

On January 29, 2025, Judge Robert Kirsch of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss a securities action asserting claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 against a financial technology company (the “Company”) and certain of its former officers.  In re PayPal Holdings Inc. Sec. Litig., 22-cv-5864-RK (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2025).  Plaintiffs claimed that defendants misstated the Company’s growth and future prospects, through statements concerning its Net New Active Accounts (“NNAs”) and Total Payment Volume (“TPV”).  The Court dismissed the action, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any material false or misleading statement.

 

On December 4, 2024, Judge John L. Badalamenti of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud action against a retail company (the “Company”), its CEO, and its Board of Directors, alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.  Craig v. Target Corp., et al., No. 2:23-cv-599-JLB-KCD (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2024).  

On November 26, 2024, Judge Jon S. Tigar 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 subscription streaming services company (the “Company”), and its CEOs, CFO, and COO (the “Individual Defendants”).  Pirani v. Netflix, Inc., et al., No. 22-cv-02672-JST (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2024). 

On November 19, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action complaint alleging that a data management and analytics software company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors made misleading statements and omissions regarding the technical capabilities of the Company’s products and its financial outlook in violation of Sections 11(a), 12(a)(2), 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”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In re Cloudera Securities Litigation, No. 22-16807 (9th Cir. Nov. 19, 2024). The Court held that plaintiff failed to allege falsity and affirmed the dismissal with prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure to cure the deficiencies of which he had been warned.

On October 30, 2024, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana adopted the September 30, 2024 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kayla Dye McClusky and granted with prejudice a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a telecommunications company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers (the “Individual Defendants”). In re Lumen Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 3:23-00286 (W.D. La. Sept. 30, 2024). Plaintiffs 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 regarding the Company’s fiber optics expansion project. The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead any actionable misstatements or omissions or loss causation and that plaintiffs failed to plead a strong inference of scienter as to any defendant.

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 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.