On April 4, 2025, Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a software company and certain of its executives.  Cupat v. Palantir Techs., Inc., No. No. 22-cv-02384, slip op. (D. Colo. Apr. 4, 2025), ECF No. 123

On April 11, 2025, Judge Brian M. Cogan 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 class action alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against a security products company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors (the “Individual Defendants”), and violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against the Company, the Individual Defendants, and certain of the underwriters (the “Underwriter Defendants”) of the Company’s secondary public offering (the “SPO”).  Zornberg v. Napco Sec. Techs., Inc., No. 23-cv-6465-BMC (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2025).

On March 31, 2025, Judge Arun Subramanian of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a cosmetics company (the “Company”), its former CEO, and its CFO, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In re The Estée Lauder Co., Inc., 23-cv-10669 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025).  The Court held that plaintiffs sufficiently pled that defendants knowingly made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s reliance on “gray market” sales of its products in Asia.  

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 20, 2025, Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted a motion to dismiss a proposed securities class action asserting claims against a satellite technology company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives (together, “defendants”) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  Lingam, et al. v. Dish Network Corp., et al., No. 23-cv-00734-GPG-KAS (D. Colo. Mar. 20, 2025). 

On March 19, 2025, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a technology company and certain of its officers.  Damri v. LivePerson, Inc., 2025 WL 863322 (S.D.N.Y. March 19, 2025).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants made misrepresentations concerning various aspects of the company’s performance.  The Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege any actionable misstatement or omission and failed to adequately plead scienter.

On February 7, 2025, Judge Brett H. Ludwig of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed a putative class action alleging that an energy product sales company (the “Company”) and its chief executive officer and chief financial officer (the “Officer Defendants”) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.City Pension Fund for Firefighters & Police Officers in the City of Tampa Bay v. Generac Holdings, 22-cv-1436-bhl (E.D. Wis. Feb. 7, 2025).According to plaintiffs, defendants allegedly failed to disclose negative trends regarding the decrease in demand of the Company’s products post-pandemic as well as defects and risks with its solar energy products.The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to plausibly allege falsity, scienter, and materiality, noting that the pleading was “heavy in sheer number of its allegations and in its conclusory allegations of fraud” but “light on specific plausible factual allegations” supporting plaintiffs’ claims.

On February 14, 2025, 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 asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against an exercise equipment company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors (the “Individual Defendants”).  Jia Tian, et al. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et al., 23-cv-4279-MKB (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2025).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding the safety of the Company’s products.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend, holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege any materially misleading statements or omissions, or scienter.

On February 25, 2025, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss amended complaints filed in a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against a special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”), its former CEO, and former officers of the target company, an online lottery-sales company (the “Company”), as well as an individual action consolidated with the putative class action and asserting similar claims. In re Lottery.com, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1:22-cv-07111 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2025). 

On January 16, 2025, Judge Trina L. Thompson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a securities action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 against a ridesharing company (the “Company”) and its Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”). Chen v. Lyft, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-01330-TLT (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2025). Plaintiff claimed that defendants fraudulently misstated the Company’s earnings forecast and failed to correct the misstatement quickly enough. The Court held that (i) the alleged misstatements were inactionable forward-looking statements, (ii) plaintiff in any event failed to allege scienter despite purporting to support its allegations with expert opinions, and (iii) defendants’ update was sufficiently quick to discharge any claimed duty to update even though there is an open question as to whether such a duty exists. On this basis, the Court dismissed the action with leave to amend.

On January 23, 2025, Judge James C. Dever III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed a putative securities class action against an auto parts retailer (the “Company”) and certain of its former executives alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Suarez v. Advanced Auto Parts, Inc. et al., No. 5:23-cv-00563 (E.D.N.C., Jan. 23, 2025). The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff failed to plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter, holding that a reasonable person would find the cogent, non-culpable explanations for the alleged misconduct more compelling.

On January 10, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities class action brought by a pension plan alleging that a hearing aid manufacturer (the “Company”) violated the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) by issuing a prospectus for its initial public offering (“IPO”) that allegedly included false and misleading statements regarding revenue recognition, risk factors, and potential growth. Cai v. Eargo, Inc., No. 23-3470, 3:21-cv-08597-CRB (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2025).  Plaintiffs also alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) based on certain post-IPO statements concerning an audit by an insurance carrier, revenue recognition, risk factors, and the Company’s growth. The Court, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the district court’s decision dismissing the complaint (which we previously covered here) holding that the alleged misstatements were not misleading or were puffery and thus not actionable under the securities laws and that plaintiffs failed to plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter.

On December 12, 2024, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan 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 under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against an insurance underwriter (the “Company”) and certain of its former and current executives (the “Individual Defendants” and, with the Company, the “Defendants”). Police & Fire Ret. Sys. City of Detroit, et al. v. Argo Grp. Int’l Holdings, Ltd., et al., 22-cv-8971 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2024). 

 

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 4, 2024, Judge Denise L. Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action brought under Sections 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), against a robotic process automation (“RPA”) software company (“Company”) and certain of its executives (“Individual Defendants”). In re UiPath, Inc. Sec. Litig., 23-cv-7908 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misrepresented its financial condition and business operations. Although it dismissed all of plaintiffs’ Securities Act claims as time-barred and most of plaintiffs’ Exchange Act claims, the Court held that plaintiffs identified several actionable misstatements and adequately alleged scienter to support claims under the Exchange Act. 

On November 22, 2024, the United States Supreme Court dismissed Meta’s appeal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision to partially reinstate a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the social media company, alleging that Meta (the “Company”) made misrepresentations relating to the misuse of user data by a third party. Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 23-980, 604 U.S. --- (2024). As we covered in a previous post, the Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition for 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.” The Court dismissed the Company’s appeal in a single-sentence, per curiam order, stating “The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.”

On November 13, 2024, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in an appeal from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a technology company and certain of its officers. NVIDIA Corporation v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, No. 23-970. Relevant to the appeal, plaintiffs allege that (a) expert analysis revealed that defendants had materially understated the extent to which the company’s graphics processing units were purchased by the volatile cryptocurrency mining industry and (b) the company’s CEO had known of the misrepresentations because he received internal reports reflecting the truth. As discussed in prior posts, the district court dismissed the case entirely and with prejudice, but the Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, partially reversed, holding that plaintiffs adequately alleged that statements by two executives had been misleading, and adequately alleged scienter as to the company’s CEO. The Supreme Court granted certiorari 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 February 20, 2024, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted with leave to amend a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a manufacturer of laboratory instruments and other advanced automation systems (the “Company”), certain of its current and former officers and directors, several venture capital firms that invested in the Company, and the underwriters of the Company’s July 2020 IPO. Victor J. Ng, et al. v. Berkeley Lights, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-09497-HSG (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the functionality of the Company’s flagship product (the “Product”).

On February 26, 2024, Judge Gregory H. Woods of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York narrowed claims in a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933 against a China-based real estate brokerage company, certain of its executives, and the underwriters in connection with a secondary offering by the company. Saskatchewan Healthcare Emps.’ Pension Plan v. KE Holdings Inc., 2024 WL 775195 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2024). Plaintiff alleged, based largely on a short-seller report, that the company made misrepresentations that significantly overstated the gross transaction value (“GTV”) of real estate transactions facilitated by the company, the number of agents and stores using its online platform, and the commissions the company received. Id. at *3–7. The Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged misrepresentations with respect to certain statements but failed to adequately allege scienter, and therefore largely declined to dismiss the Securities Act claim but dismissed the Exchange Act claim with leave to replead.

On February 23, 2024, Judge Katherine Polk Failla 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 financial institution and certain of its executives. In re Barclays PLC Sec. Litig., 2024 WL 757385 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that the company had issued securities in excess of what it had registered for with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which allegedly rendered misleading certain of its statements regarding compliance with securities laws and internal controls. Id. While the Court held that certain alleged misrepresentations were adequately pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed claims as to statements made after the alleged over-issuances were disclosed and rejected plaintiff’s control person liability theory as to certain defendants.

On March 5, 2024, Judge John P. Cronan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part, and denied in part, a motion to dismiss a putative shareholders’ class action, alleging that a software company (the “Company”), several of its executives and directors (“Individual Defendants”), and three banks who underwrote the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Lian v. Tuya Inc., 22 Civ. 6792 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that the Company failed to disclose at the time of its IPO, as required by Items 105 and 303 of Regulation S-K, that its sales and growth could be impacted by the involvement of a significant percentage of its customers in a pervasive and far-reaching fake customer reviews scheme. Furthermore, plaintiff alleged that the Company’s failure to disclose the scheme rendered several statements in the IPO registration statement (“Registration Statement”) false and misleading. The Court dismissed the claims predicated upon Items 105 and 303 but found the Section 11 claims based upon alleged misstatements in the Registration Statement to be sufficiently pled.

On March 11, 2024, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 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 class action brought against a biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and its CEO. Pardi et al., v. Tricida, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-00076-HSG (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2024). Plaintiff 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 making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the likelihood that the Company’s new drug would receive accelerated FDA approval. The Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and was voluntarily dismissed, and the CEO moved to dismiss.

On March 14, 2024, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendants’ motions to dismiss a putative class action against a China-based ride hailing company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the company’s IPO, asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re Didi Global Inc. Sec. Litig., 2024 WL 1119483 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the company omitted from its filings in connection with its New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) IPO that the Chinese government had directed it to postpone its IPO, with the Chinese government imposing penalties after the company allegedly disregarded this directive. The Court held that plaintiffs’ allegations were adequate to state a claim with respect to nearly all of their asserted claims.

On March 25, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed a trial court decision dismissing a putative securities class action brought by investors against a biopharmaceutical company (“Company”) and certain of its officers and executives, alleging violations Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5. In re Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 22-55641 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants made false statements about developments regarding the Company’s new COVID-19 antibody treatment, which allegedly misled investors and the public to believe that the Company had discovered a “cure” for the virus in order to boost the Company’s stock prices to improve its allegedly “dire financial situation.” Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice, holding that plaintiff had not plausibly pleaded falsity or scienter. The trial court entered judgment after plaintiff failed to file an amended pleading. Plaintiff appealed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that (1) the allegedly misleading statements were inactionable puffery and (2) standing alone, the Company’s allegedly poor financial position was not sufficient to warrant an inference of scienter.

On January 30, 2024, Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted with leave to amend a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a battery company and its directors and officers.  In Re Enovix Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2024).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose that the Company overlooked critical testing of its manufacturing equipment, which led to equipment failure that caused the Company to miss its performance targets.

On February 1, 2024, Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against an IT solutions company that provides digital communication, cybersecurity and IT consulting services, its CEO and current and former CFOs.  Connor v. Unisys Corp., et al., No. 22-4529 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2024).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants made false representations about the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Court dismissed the amended complaint, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately allege falsity, scienter and loss causation.

On February 5, 2024, Judge Arun Subramanian of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York largely declined to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a manufacturer of medical tests and certain of its executives.  Stadium Capital LLC v. Co-Diagnostics, Inc., 2024 WL 456745 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2024).  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding the prospect of future sales of the company’s medical tests as the COVID-19 pandemic subsided.  The Court held that plaintiff plausibly alleged actionable misrepresentations regarding comments made announcing earnings results for the first quarter of 2022, and plausibly alleged that defendants acted with scienter.

On February 6, 2024, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with leave to amend a putative class action asserting claims under the Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (“SPAC”) and certain of its officers and directors, along with an individual action consolidated with the putative class action and asserting similar claims.  In re Lottery.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:22-cv-07111 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2024), slip op.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented certain financial information regarding the SPAC’s target company both before and after the merger.  The Court held that, while certain challenged statements were adequately alleged to be false, plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege scienter with respect to any alleged misrepresentation.

On January 19, 2024, Judge Orelia Merchant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a proposed securities class action against a lithium mining company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors (the “Individual Defendants”) alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). In re Piedmont Lithium Inc., Sec. Litig., 21-CV-4161 (OEM) (PK) (E.D.N.Y. Jan 18, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that the Company made misleading positive statements in connection with a North Carolina lithium mining project (the “Project”) and that the Individual Defendants subsequently sold Company stock prior to the release of a negative news article. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims, finding that plaintiff had failed to raise a strong inference of scienter.

On January 22, 2024, Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action complaint alleging that a software company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. City of Hollywood Firefighters Pension Fund v. Atlassian Corp., 3:23-cv-00519-WHO (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements about the strength of its financial outlook. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege falsity with respect to most of the alleged misrepresentations or sufficient facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter with respect to one omission that was alleged plausibly.

On January 17, 2024, Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against a medical apparel company, certain of its officers, and the underwriters of its stock offerings.  Ryan v. FIGS, Inc., 2024 WL 187001 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2024). 

On December 11, 2023, Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California narrowed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the purchaser of a social media company. Pampena v. Musk, — F. Supp. 3d — 2023 WL 8588853 (N.D. Cal. 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that they sold shares in the target company at depressed prices after the purchaser allegedly made material misstatements suggesting that he would not go forward with the acquisition. The Court held that certain of the challenged statements were actionable and granted leave to replead with respect to the others.

On November 27, 2023, Judge Kathleen M. Williams of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a proposed securities class action alleging that an electric vehicle charging company and certain of its officers violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Bush v. Blink Charging Co., No. 1:20-cv-23527-KMW (S.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2023).  Plaintiffs allege that the Company made false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the size and functionality of the Company’s electric vehicle (“EV”) charging station network.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim as to the size of the EV charging station network, but permitted plaintiffs’ claim regarding its functionality.

On November 3, 2023, Judge Rachel P. Kovner of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a proposed putative securities class action alleging that a Russian electronic payments company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).  In re Qiwi PLC Sec. Litig., No. 1:20-cv-06054-RPK-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2023).

On October 11, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the First 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 pharmaceutical company and certain of its former executives.  Shash v. Biogen, Inc., —F.4th—, 2023 WL 6617278 (1st Cir. 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misstatements and omissions regarding the clinical trial results of the company’s drug to treat Alzheimer’s.  The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, but the First Circuit reversed the dismissal in part, holding that plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient with respect to one challenged statement, while affirming that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter with respect to other challenged statements.

On September 29, 2023, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied in part and granted in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against the owner of a social media company and his beneficial trust.  Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Musk, No. 22-cv-03026 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2023).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly concealing the owner’s ownership interests in the Company to investors who sold shares of the Company between March 25, 2022, and April 4, 2022, the putative class period.

On August 31, 2023, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action alleging that a hearing aid company, its officers, directors and underwriters, violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In re Eargo, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 21-cv-08597 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misrepresented the Company’s revenue and growth opportunities in its offering materials and allegedly downplayed an audit that allegedly led to a Department of Justice investigation in later SEC filings and public statements.

On September 18, 2023, Judge Manish S. Shah of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois narrowed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an airplane manufacturer and its former CEO and CFO.  College Ret. Equities Fund v. Boeing Co., 2023 WL 6065260 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged the company made misrepresentations regarding two crashes of a new model of plane and the company’s responsive measures in an effort to return the fleet to service.  The Court held that various challenged statements were not actionable because plaintiffs failed to adequately allege falsity or scienter.  With respect to the remaining challenged statements, the Court further pared the claims by holding that loss causation was not sufficiently alleged in connection with certain purported corrective disclosures.

On September 25, 2023, Judge Pamela K. Chen 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 alleging that an IT portfolio management services company, its CEO, and its CFO violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Handal v. Tenet Fintech Grp. Inc., No. 1:21-cv-06461 (PKC) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made material misstatements regarding several business transactions in the Company’s registration statement and the CEO’s subsequent public statements.  The Court denied the motion with respect to the Securities Act claims but granted it with respect to the Exchange Act claim because plaintiffs failed to adequately allege reliance.

On August 21, 2023, Judge Paul A. Crotty of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion for reconsideration of his denial of an earlier motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a pharmaceutical and cannabis company that sells cannabis, hemp, and related products (the “Company”) and certain of its officers (the “Individual Defendants”).  Kasilingam et al. v. Tilray Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-03459 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2023).  Based on the Court’s reconsidered analysis, the Court granted defendants’ second motion to dismiss.  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 thereunder by making false and misleading statements to inflate the Company’s stock price.

On August 21, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a consolidated putative class action alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against a large aerostructures manufacturing company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  Meitav Dash Provident Funds and Pension Ltd., et al. v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, et al., No. 22-5013 (10th Cir. Aug. 21, 2023).  The Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter.  In a split decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

On August 23, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part an order dismissing a putative securities class action against a property and casualty insurer (the “Company”), various corporate officers and board members of the Company, the Company’s outside auditor, and multiple underwriters of the Company’s sale of securities.  New England Carpenters Guaranteed Annuity and Pension Funds, et al. v. AmTrust Financial Services Inc., et al., 20-1643 (Aug. 23, 2023).  In vacating the district court’s dismissal in part, the Second Circuit held that in light of its more recent precedent, certain alleged misstatements of opinion were actionable as alleged in the complaint, and therefore reversed the district court’s dismissal of claims related to those alleged misstatements, but otherwise affirmed the district court’s decision dismissing the remaining claims.

On August 25, 2023, a sharply divided panel of 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 against a producer of graphics processing units and certain of its executives.  E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB v. NVIDIA Corp., —F.4th—, 2023 WL 5496507 (9th Cir. 2023).  As discussed in our prior post, plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding the extent to which its revenues and growth depended on sales of graphics processing units to the volatile cryptocurrency mining industry.  The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs adequately alleged that statements by two executives were misleading, and adequately alleged scienter as to the company’s CEO.

On August 8, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a direct-to-consumer marketing company and certain of its officers.  In re Tupperware Brands Corp. Sec. Litig., 2023 WL 5091802 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023).  Plaintiff alleged that the company misrepresented its financial performance as a result of a fraudulent sales scheme orchestrated at the company’s subsidiary.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s third amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege scienter on the part of the makers of the challenged statements and failed to allege scheme liability.

On July 21, 2023, Judge Lewis J. Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action alleging that an agriculture company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers (the “Individual Defendants”) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  In Re Appharvest Sec. Litig., No. 21-cv-7985 (LJL), 2023 BL 261952 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made misleading statements about the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on quality control, training, yield, and employee attrition at the Company’s main plant.

On July 10, 2023, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a mattress and bedding company (the “Company”) and two of its executives.  Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Securities Funds v. Sleep Number Corp., et al, No. 21-CV-2669 (PJS/DTS) (D. Minn. July 10, 2010).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making material misstatements and omissions regarding an alleged disruption to the Company’s supply chain after a natural disaster that forced certain of the Company’s distributors to temporarily shut down.  The Court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity and scienter.

On July 25, 2023, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against an online food ordering and delivery platform (the “Company”), alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Steamship Trade Ass’n of Baltimore-Int’l Longshoreman’s Ass’n Pension Fund v. Olo Inc., No. 22-CV-8228 (JSR), 2023 WL 4744197 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2023).  Plaintiff alleged that the Company and two of its officers misled investors by (1) failing to disclose that one of its restaurant partners intended to terminate its partnership with the Company; and (2) misrepresenting the number of “active” restaurant locations that utilized the Company’s product.

On July 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors.  San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund v. Syneos Health Inc., 2023 WL 4688178 (4th Cir. 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misled investors about its projected growth following its merger with another company.  The Fourth Circuit held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter, and that they also failed to allege that the alleged misstatements were material, stating that “not every financial disappointment is actionable under federal law.”

On July 3, 2023, Judge Josephine L. Staton of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action against an electric automobile company (the “Company”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), and Regulation S-K.  Crews v. Rivian Auto., Inc., No. 2:22-CV-01524-JLS-E, 2023 WL 4361098 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2023).  We previously covered the Court’s decision dismissing plaintiffs’ initial complaint without prejudice.  In their amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the company made various misleading statements relating to the pricing and profitability of its vehicles despite knowing for several years prior to the Company’s 2021 IPO that it would need to increase pricing to address higher-than-anticipated costs for materials needed for production.  The Court held that plaintiffs’ amended complaint sufficiently alleged actionable misrepresentations and raised a plausible inference of scienter.

On June 15, 2023, Judge Michael A. Shipp of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in an unpublished opinion, adopted a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation denying a motion to dismiss claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against an accounting firm (the “Firm”) in connection with an audit report it issued for a pharmaceutical company’s (the “Company”) financial statements in connection with the Company’s public offering.  In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals Intl., Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-7658 (MAS) (LHG) (D.N.J. June 15, 2023).  We previously covered the district court’s decision denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings in this action, as well as the district court’s decision denying a motion to dismiss by other defendants in the action.

On May 16, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims against a pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Nandkumar v. AstraZeneca PLC, No. 22-2704-CV, 2023 WL 3477164 (2d Cir. May 16, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made misstatements and omissions about the progress of their clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccine.  The district court held that plaintiffs failed to plead falsity or scienter, a decision we previously covered.  The Second Circuit, in a summary order, affirmed the dismissal, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead with specificity facts that would explain why and how investors were misled.

On April 18, 2023, Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action alleging a software company (the “Company”) and several of its officers (the “individual defendants”) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”). Weston v. DocuSign, Inc. et al., No. 22-cv-00824 (Apr. 18, 2023).  Plaintiff claimed that defendants made false and misleading statements to investors about the sustainability of the Company’s COVID-19 pandemic-driven growth.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that at least some of the alleged material misstatements or omissions were not protected by the safe-harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), and that plaintiff had sufficiently pled falsity, scienter, and loss causation as it related to those statements.

On April 27, 2023, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a proposed securities class action suit against a financial technology company (the “Company”) and four executives, including its CEO and CFO, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5(b).  Huei-Ting Kang v. PayPal Holdings Inc., No. 3:21-cv-06468 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2023).  The Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to plead falsity and failure to plead a strong inference of scienter.  The Court had previously dismissed plaintiffs’ prior complaint without prejudice, in a decision covered here.

On March 31, 2023, Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a semiconductor company (the “Company”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that the Company misled investors about its progress in creating a smaller, 7-nanometer microchip. In re Intel Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 5:20-cv-05194, 2023 WL 2767779 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 31, 2023). The Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead falsity and scienter.

On March 29, 2023, Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action alleging a pharmaceutical company (the “Company”), its former CEO, the president of its U.S. division, and its former Chief Medical Officer (“CMO”) made false and misleading statements regarding the efficacy of the Company’s new Alzheimer’s drug. Okla. Firefighters Pension and Ret. Sys. v. Biogen Inc., et al., No. 22-10200-WGY (D. Mass. Mar. 29, 2023). In granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to plead facts with particularity establishing that any of the challenged statements were false or misleading or that there was a strong inference of scienter.

On March 31, 2023, Judge John P. Cronan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a financial institution that offered certain Exchange Traded Notes (the “ETN”) linked to a natural gas price index. Gomez v. Credit Suisse AG, No. 22 Civ. 115 (JPC) (BCM), 2023 WL 2744415 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2023).

On March 14, 2023, Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a putative class action suit against a pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and its executives alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Lewakowski v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 3:21-cv-03751, 2023 WL 2496504 (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misled investors regarding the efficacy of a new drug and the likelihood of approval by the Food and Drug Administration. The Court dismissed the action without prejudice, holding that the complaint “cherry-pick[ed] out-of-context quotes from the Company’s disclosures” and failed to allege falsity or scienter.

On March 1, 2023, Judge Jesse Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and its executives (the “Individual Defendants”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), and SEC Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9. In Re: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. CVR Securities Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-08255 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company secretly “slow rolled” the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval process for certain medications and made misrepresentations about its efforts to obtain timely FDA approval. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company did so to avoid having to pay $6.4 billion to the holders of Contingent Value Right securities (“CVRs”), which would expire and be worthless if the drugs were not approved by particular deadlines (the “CVR Deadlines”). The Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety but granted leave for plaintiffs to replead their claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On February 24, 2023, Judge Esther Salas of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a Beijing-based education company (the “Company”) and its CEO and CFO (the “Individual Defendants”). The lawsuit alleged that the Company misled investors about its student enrollment figures in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Wu v. GSX Techedu Inc., No. 20-cv-04457, 2023 WL 2207422 (D.N.J. Feb. 24, 2023). Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the Company artificially inflated its enrollment figures by creating fake student accounts. In dismissing the action, the Court discounted the import of several purported confidential witness statements, demonstrating the rigor courts apply to such allegations, and held that the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter.

On March 14, 2023, Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed without prejudice a putative class action against an automobile manufacturer, its U.S. based based subsidiary, and certain of its officers, asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re Volkswagen AG Sec. Litig., 2023 WL 2505539 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that the company’s U.S. subsidiary misrepresented that the company would change its name to one suggesting an increased focus on electric vehicles, which the company later indicated had been intended as an April Fool’s joke. The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged falsity and scienter but failed to show that the challenged statements were sufficiently connected to the securities at issue to be actionable.

On February 14, 2023, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action alleging that a hearing aid company (the “Company”) and its officers, directors, and IPO underwriters falsely or misleadingly inflated the Company’s revenue and growth opportunities and allegedly downplayed an insurance audit, leading to a Department of Justice investigation for insurance fraud.  In re Eargo, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 21-cv-08597 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against all defendants, and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and its officers.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead falsity and scienter.

On February 2, 2023, Judge Steven P. Logan of the United States District of Arizona dismissed a putative class action alleging that manufacturer of hydrogen-electric vehicles (the “Company”), the Company’s former CEO (the “CEO”), and certain of its other senior executives (the “Individual Defendants”) misled investors about the Company’s hydrogen fuel cell technology and business prospects for its electric trucks in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation et al., No. 20-cv-01797 WL 1472852 (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 2023).   Although the Court held that plaintiff had adequately alleged the falsity of certain categories of alleged misstatements, the Court ruled that plaintiffs failed to plead a strong inference of scienter as to certain defendants and failed to plead loss causation generally.
 

​On February 1, 2023, Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed a putative securities fraud action against a cybersecurity company (the “Company”) and several of its executives and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act.  Firemen’s Retirement System of St. Louis, et al. v. Telos Corp., et al., No. 1:22-cv-00135 (E.D. Va. Feb. 1, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misled investors about the status and prospects of key government contracts and falsely certified to having reasonable financial controls.  The court dismissed the action without prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege falsity or scienter. 
 

On January 18, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s order dismissing the putative securities class action with prejudice, holding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that a major theme park operator (the “Company”) and two of its executives made material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Oklahoma Firefighter Pension and Retirement Systems v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, No. 21-10865, 2023 WL 228268 (5th Cir. 2023).  Largely on information from a former employee (“FE”), the complaint alleged that defendants misled investors by projecting unrealistic or impossible timelines for opening theme parks in China.  After significantly discounting the FE’s allegations, the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the complaint adequately alleged the FE’s personal knowledge of the relevant topics and that the FE’s allegations should be discounted “only minimally.”

On January 22, 2023, Judge Percy Anderson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss the third amended class action complaint (“TAC”) in a putative class action alleging that a video game company (the “Company”) and four of its officers misled investors by making material misstatements and omissions concerning sexual harassment and discrimination at the Company.  Cheng v. Activision Blizzard Inc. et al., 2:21-cv-06240 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2023).  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.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ TAC with prejudice, finding plaintiffs failed to plead falsity and scienter.

On January 10, 2023, Judge Paul Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an online sports gaming and betting company and certain of its executives.  In re DraftKings Inc. Sec. Litig., 2023 WL 145591 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations and omissions regarding whether a target company it acquired had gambling operations in jurisdictions where gambling was illegal.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege actionable misrepresentations or scienter.

On December 7, 2022, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington largely denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an online real estate listing company and certain of its executives.  Jaeger v. Zillow Group, Inc., 2022 WL 17486297 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 7, 2022). Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations in connection with a real estate purchasing program.  While the Court dismissed one allegation as a non-actionable forward-looking statement, the Court held that the remainder of plaintiff’s allegations stated a claim.

 
On November 22, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against an online education platform (the “Company”) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. Boykin v. K12, Inc., No. 21-2351, 2022 WL 17097453 (4th Cir. 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company artificially inflated the cost of its shares by misrepresenting the state of its business during the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court found that plaintiffs failed to plead falsity and scienter and granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege actionable misrepresentations or facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter.

On November 7, 2022, Judge Allyne R. Ross of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a space exploration company (the “Company”), its founder, and certain of its current and former executives. Kusnier and Scheele v. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., et al, No. 21-cv-03070-ARR (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the safety history and functioning capabilities of the Company’s spacecraft. The Court granted the motion in part but found sufficient at the pleading stage certain alleged misstatements.
 

On October 20, 2022, Judge George A. O’Toole, Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Court”) denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a business communications infrastructure company (the “Company”) and three of its executives.  Miller v. Sonus Networks, Inc., et al, No. 18-12344-GAO (D. Mass Oct. 20, 2022).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s projected sales and revenue forecast.  The Court denied the motion, finding that plaintiff adequately pled scienter.

On September 29, 2022, Chief Judge David C. Godbey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an oil company and certain of its officers.  Yoshikawa v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:21-CV-00194-N, 2022 WL 4677621 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations in connection with the company’s purchase of certain oil and gas assets and its expected production from those assets.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter but granted plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend with respect to certain alleged misstatements as to which the Court held plaintiffs had alleged a plausible theory of falsity and materiality.

On September 12, 2022, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  In re AstraZeneca plc Sec. Litig., 2022 WL 4133258 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misstatements and omissions with respect to clinical trials of its COVID-19 vaccine.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to identify any misleading statements and failed to adequately allege scienter.

On August 23, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit unanimously reversed the dismissal of a putative securities class action against an online education company (the “Company”), alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 20A of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements about the size and productivity of the Company’s sales force.  The district court dismissed the Exchange Act claims because plaintiffs failed to plead a strong inference of scienter and dismissed both the Exchange Act and the Securities Act claims for failure to plead a violation of Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K.  On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that (i) the Exchange Act allegations “support[ed] an inference of scienter at least as compelling as any nonculpable inference” and (ii) the district court relied on “erroneous reasoning” to dismiss the Exchange Act and Securities Act claims based on the alleged violation of Item 303.

On August 8, 2022, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a proposed securities class action suit against a financial technology company (the “Company”) and four of its executives alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Huei-Ting Kang v. PayPal Holdings Inc., No. 3:21-cv-06468 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misled investors about its compliance with (1) a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) Consent Order (the “Consent Order”) prohibiting deceptive marketing of the company’s revolving line of credit; and (2) the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation II, which caps debit card interchange fees.  The Court’s dismissal of the complaint (with leave to amend) is a reminder of the challenges plaintiffs face when trying to assert securities claims in the wake of company announcements of regulatory investigations.

On August 4, 2022, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed without prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a recycling services company, certain of its officers and directors, and the former CEO of a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that acquired the company.  Theodore v. PureCycle Tech. Inc., No. 6:21-cv-809-PGB-GJK, slip op. (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2022), ECF No. 112.  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations with respect to its management team’s experience, the value of its patented recycling process, and its future production and financial projections, which were allegedly revealed in a short-seller report.  The Court held that the complaint on its face failed to state precisely which statements or omissions were at issue and where they were made, that plaintiffs adequately alleged certain misrepresentations but not others, and that plaintiffs adequately alleged loss causation but not scienter.

On August 4, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  Paxton v. Provention Bio, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-11613, slip op. (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2022), ECF No. 57.  Plaintiffs alleged the company made misrepresentations in connection with the company’s candidate drug intended to delay or prevent the progression of Type One Diabetes.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege actionable misrepresentations, scienter, or loss causation.

On July 26, 2022, Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division granted in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment in a securities fraud class action against an insurance company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  In re The Allstate Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 16-C-10510 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements and omissions regarding a spike in the frequency of automobile policy claims, which plaintiffs alleged had a negative impact on the Company’s financial condition and stock price.

On July 27, 2022, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissing a putative securities fraud class action asserting a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as claims under the Commodities Exchange Act, against an options and futures exchange company (the “Company”).  Brian Barry, et al. v. CBOE Global Markets, Inc., et al., No. 20-1843 (7th Cir. July 27, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company violated the Exchange Act by trading options and futures based on an index it created (“VIX”) that was designed to estimate the near-term volatility in the S&P 500 Index, but allegedly was subject to market manipulation by unknown traders (the “Doe Defendants”) soon after its creation.  The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead scienter.

On July 15, 2022, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California largely denied a motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action against a biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In re FibroGen, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 21-cv-02623-EMC (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made 96 false and misleading statements concerning the “safety and efficacy data of its flagship drug.”  Although the Court held that a handful of the misstatements were not actionable for failure to adequately allege falsity, the Court otherwise denied the motion to dismiss.

On July 13, 2022, the United States District Court for the Central District of California largely denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), a space industry startup that was the SPAC’s target, certain executives of both companies, and an investor that served as sponsor of the SPAC.  In re Stable Road Acquisition Sec. Litig., No. 2:21-cv-05744, slip op. (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2022), ECF No. 154.  Plaintiff alleged that the target company made misrepresentations regarding the viability of its technology and the immigration and national security status of its CEO, which the SPAC allegedly repeated without conducting adequate due diligence.  The Court held that plaintiff’s allegations were largely sufficient but that plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter or control person liability with respect to certain executives.

On July 5, 2022, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California granted motions to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), against a mobile gaming technology company (the “Company”), certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters.  Jedrzejczyk, et al. v. Skillz Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-03450-RS (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding the Company’s financial condition, technical capabilities, and business prospects.  The Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity, scienter, or loss causation as to the Exchange Act claims, and that plaintiffs had not established standing or adequately pled material untrue statements or omissions as to the Securities Act claims.

On June 28, 2022, Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a retail clothing brand (the “Company”) and two of its executives (“Individual Defendants”) alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  In re Ascena Retail Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV1913529KMJBC, 2022 WL 2314890 (D.N.J. June 28, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company knowingly or recklessly overstated the value and business prospects of the Company and its subsidiaries in public statements and SEC filings.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to plead an actionable misrepresentation or allegations sufficient to support a strong inference of scienter.

On June 9, 2022, Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against a healthcare company (the “Company”), its directors, and the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering.  R. Brian Terenzini v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 2:20-cv-11444, (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged in their amended complaint that at the time of the Company’s IPO it failed to disclose in its Registration Statement and subsequent investor communications the significant risk of competition from a large online retailer.  The Court held that—as with the original complaint—plaintiffs failed to allege actionable misstatements or omissions as well as scienter and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice.
 

On May 31, 2022, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California dismissed without prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act against a synthetic biology company and certain of its executives.  Joseph v. Precigen, Inc., No. 20-cv-06936-BLF (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2022).  Plaintiff alleged that the company misrepresented the efficiency and economic viability of its methane conversion program.  The Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter and failed to allege falsity with respect to certain alleged misrepresentations; however, the Court granted leave to replead.

On May 4, 2022, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging, among other things, violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against an investment company (the “Company”), its related entities, and its president and co-founder.  Michael Tecku et al. v. YieldStreet Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-07327 (S.D.N.Y May 4, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company “misrepresented material facts about the stability and attractiveness of their investment products in its offering documents” by making misleading statements or omissions in private placement memoranda (“PPMs”) and series notes supplements (“SNSs”).  The Court held that, accepting plaintiffs’ allegations as true, plaintiffs sufficiently alleged securities fraud violations for certain alleged misstatements and omissions.

On April 18, 2022, the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed without prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a computer game development company and certain of its executives.  Cheng v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. 21-cv-6240, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022), ECF No. 75.  Plaintiffs alleged the company made statements that were misleading because they failed to disclose certain government investigations and the prevalence of sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination at the company.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to identify any actionable misrepresentations or to adequately raise an inference of scienter but granted plaintiffs leave to replead.

On April 12, 2022, Judge Rachel P. Kovner of the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against an airline company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors.  In re GOL Linhas Aéreas Inteligentes S.A. Securities Litigation, No. 1:20-cv-04243-RPK-TAM (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made materially misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s financial strength in an earnings report issued in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite allegedly knowing that its auditor would be issuing a report emphasizing a going concern and raising material weaknesses concerning the Company’s internal controls.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead material misstatements or omissions as well as scienter.

On March 25, 2022, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a telecommunications company and certain of its executives.  Solomon v. Sprint Corp., 1:19-cv-05272 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2022).  Plaintiffs primarily alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding its reporting of new phone subscriptions and its participation in a government-subsidized discounted phone program.  The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged misrepresentations and scienter with respect to statements regarding new subscriptions but held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter with respect to statements regarding the discounted phone program and concluded that certain other challenged statements were mere puffery.

On March 30, 2022, Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas denied the majority of a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an information technology company, certain of its executives, and private equity firms that owned the company’s securities.  In re SolarWinds Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 1:21-CV-138-RP (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that company statements regarding its cybersecurity policies and practices were revealed to be false and misleading upon the disclosure of a security breach.  The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged falsity, scienter, and loss causation, except as to the company’s CEO, the allegations as to whom the Court granted plaintiffs leave to replead.

On March 25, 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania largely denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  Halman Aldubi Provident & Pension Funds Ltd. v. Teva Pharm. Indus. Ltd., No. 20-cv-4660-KSM (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2022).  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations with respect to the reasons one of its drugs was commercially successful.  The Court held that except for allegations against the company’s CFO, plaintiff adequately alleged misrepresentations, scienter, and loss causation.

On March 30, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, without prejudice, a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a cosmetics retailer and certain of its executives. Chandler v. Ulta Beauty, Inc., No. 18-CV-1577, 2022 WL 952441, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made various statements that were misleading because they failed to disclose the company’s alleged practice of reselling used returned products.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to identify any actionable misrepresentations and failed to adequately allege scienter, but granted plaintiffs leave to replead.

On March 21, 2022, Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against a pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  Rice v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00036 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants omitted material information concerning the safety of the Company’s liver disease drug that resulted in a stock drop once alleged corrective disclosures were made.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (the “FAC”), holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege material omissions, scienter, or loss causation, but granted plaintiffs leave to replead.

On March 15, 2022, Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action against a global company that focuses on facilitating the adoption of commercial electronic vehicles (“EV”) through its China-based division (the “Company”) and certain of its directors and officers for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In re Ideanomics Sec. Litig., No. 20 CIV. 4944 (GBD), 2022 WL 784812 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company’s executives made numerous misstatements about the China-based sales hub (the “Center”) in earnings calls, YouTube interviews, and the press.  The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, holding that although the complaint plausibly alleged misstatements, it failed to allege scienter or loss causation.

On March 11, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against a pharmaceutical company (the “Company”).  Arkansas Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 20-3716-CV (2d Cir. Mar. 11, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and omissions in describing a clinical trial it conducted on a drug that treated specific types of cancer.  Following a dismissal of plaintiff’s initial complaint without prejudice, a decision previously covered here, the district court subsequently dismissed plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice.  The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege (i) material misrepresentations or omissions or (ii) facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter.

On March 7, 2022, Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the Southern District of Ohio largely denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) against an energy company, certain of its executives and directors, and certain underwriters of its bond offerings.  In re FirstEnergy Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 2:20-cv-3785 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company engaged in an anti-competitive scheme that included bribing state officials in exchange for a government bailout of its nuclear power facilities.  The lawsuit relates to the Ohio House Bill 6 scandal, in connection with which Ohio’s former Speaker of the House and others have been arrested on racketeering charges, political strategists and lobbyists have pleaded guilty to a racketeering conspiracy; the company fired certain executives for violating company policies and its code of conduct, and the company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement under which it paid a $230 million penalty and acknowledged having “conspired with public officials and other individuals and entities to pay millions of dollars to and for the benefit of public officials in exchange for specific official action” for the company’s benefit.  The Court held that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged the various elements of their claims and declined to dismiss any defendant from the case, although the Court dismissed certain claims with respect to certain individual defendants.

On March 7, 2022, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a coal mining company and certain of its executives.  In re Peabody Energy Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-8024 (PKC), slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2022), ECF No. 50.  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations concerning its safety practices, a fire that took place at one of its mines, and its ability to subsequently reopen that mine and resume operations.  The Court held that the complaint adequately alleged misrepresentations and scienter with respect to the mine fire but dismissed the remaining challenged statements as non-actionable puffery, protected forward-looking statements, or statements of opinion.

On February 11, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against a consumer financial services company that issues private-label credit cards and certain of its executives.  In re Synchrony Fin. Sec. Litig., No. 3:18-CV-1818 (VAB), 2022 WL 427499 (D. Conn. Feb. 11, 2022).  As discussed in our prior post the Court had previously dismissed the action in its entirety, including with respect to claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”).  The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of the Securities Act claims and certain of the Exchange Act claims but remanded for further proceedings regarding one challenged statement—that the company misrepresented the alleged “pushback” it had received from retail partners with respect to its underwriting standards.  Id. at *2.  On remand, the district court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged falsity, scienter, and loss causation with respect to the remaining challenged statement.

On February 16, 2022, Judge James Donato of 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 Exchange Act of 1934 against a videoconferencing company and certain of its executives.  In re Zoom Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-02353-JD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2022).  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations concerning the level of encryption on its primary videoconferencing product.  The Court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged falsity, scienter, and loss causation as to the CEO’s challenged statements regarding encryption, but it dismissed claims as to certain other alleged misstatements, and all claims against one executive, for failure to sufficiently allege scienter, while granting leave to amend.

On February 9, 2022, Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the Southern District of New York denied in part and granted in part a motion to dismiss a securities fraud action asserting claims related to alleged spoofing and short selling under Sections 10(b) and 9(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, against broker-dealers, their Canadian affiliates, and unidentified U.S. and Canadian entities, including market makers, subsidiaries, affiliates, sister companies, and customers of the named defendants (collectively, “defendants”).  Harrington Global Opportunity Fund v. CIBC World Markets Corp., 21-CV-761 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2022).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants engaged in spoofing and short selling that caused a healthcare company’s stock, which plaintiff owned, to drop almost 90% over a nine-month period.  The Court denied dismissal of plaintiff’s spoofing claims against certain defendants and granted dismissal of plaintiff’s short selling claims against other defendants.

On January 14, 2022, Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California denied 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 Rule 10b-5, against a lithium battery development company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives (collectively, “defendants”).  In re Quantumscape Securities Class Action Litigation, No. 3:21-cv-00058-WHO (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2022).  The Company’s “solid-state” battery is an aspiring competitor to conventional lithium-ion batteries for use in electric vehicles.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the Complaint was adequately plead with the exception of one of the challenged statements that it dismissed.

On December 22, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California declined to dismiss most of the claims asserted in a putative class action against a biotechnology company, certain of its executives, and the company’s former majority investor under the Securities Exchange Act.  In re Vaxart, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 regarding its efforts to develop a vaccine, and further alleged that the investor engaged in a scheme to inflate the company’s stock price in order to exit its position at a profit.  The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged misrepresentations and scienter as against the company and its executives named as individual defendants but dismissed the claims against the investor.

On December 20, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action against a social media company and certain of its executives under the Securities Exchange Act.  In re Facebook, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 5:18-CV-01725-EJD, 2021 WL 6000058 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations relating to a data breach and with respect to users’ control of their data.  The Court previously dismissed plaintiffs’ prior two complaints but granted leave to replead.  Addressing plaintiffs’ third amended complaint, the Court held that plaintiffs still failed to adequately allege scienter for the data breach allegations and loss causation for the allegations about control of user data, and therefore dismissed the action without leave to replead.

On December 22, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims against a software company and certain of its current and former executives under the Securities Exchange Act.  Constr. Indus. and Laborers Jt. Pension Tr. v. Carbonite, Inc., —F.4th—, 2021 WL 6062622 (1st Cir. 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company misleadingly touted the capabilities of a new cloud-based data backup product, even though defendants knew that the product did not work.  The district court dismissed the action for failure to adequately allege scienter, but the First Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiffs adequately alleged scienter and that the challenged statements were actionable.

On December 17, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously vacated and remanded for reconsideration the dismissal by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of a putative securities class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder, against a health food product manufacturing company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives, for alleged misstatements regarding the Company’s sales and internal controls.  In re: The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 20-1517 (2d Cir. Dec. 17, 2021).  The late District Judge Arthur Spatt granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, with prejudice, the Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”), holding that plaintiffs failed to allege a fraudulent scheme or business practice in violation of the terms of Rule 10b-5(a)-(c), and further failed to sufficiently plead scienter.  Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal with respect to their Rule 10b-5(b) claims.  The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal, holding that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs’ Rule 10b-5(b) claim relied on plaintiffs’ pleading a fraudulent business scheme or plan.

On December 1, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an information technology company and certain of its executives.  KBC Asset Mgt. NV v. DXC Tech. Co., —F.4th—, 2021 WL 5626377 (4th Cir. 2021).  Plaintiffs claimed that the company made misrepresentations regarding its financial health, which plaintiffs alleged were false because the company had undertaken cost-cutting measures that undermined its ability to meet its revenue projections.  The district court dismissed the action and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter.

On November 2, 2021, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division granted in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment in a securities class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against a retail drugstore chain (the “Company”) and two of its former senior executives.  Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Walgreen Co. et al., No. 15-cv-03187 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2021).  Plaintiff alleged defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s earnings before interest and taxes (“EBIT”) projections and its ability to meet it.  The Court granted in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that one of the alleged misstatements was a non-actionable forward-looking statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s (“PSLRA”) safe harbor, that defendants proved the truth of certain alleged misstatements, but that triable issues of material fact remained with respect to a number of other alleged misstatements.  The Court denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding one of the individual defendant’s intent to deceive, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the falsity of that defendant’s statements and is therefore a question for the jury.

On October 19, 2021, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California narrowed the claims in a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  Sheet Metal Works Nat’l Pension Fund v. Bayer AG, No. 20-cv-4737, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2021), ECF No. 90.  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations relating to its acquisition of Monsanto.  The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations and scienter with respect to only some of the challenged statements, and further held that plaintiffs adequately alleged loss causation for those statements.

On October 18, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa dismissing a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a media company and certain of its executives.  City of Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund v. Meredith Corp., –F.4th–, 2021 WL 4823411 (8th Cir. 2021).  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations in connection with the expected benefits from its acquisition of a magazine publisher.  The district court dismissed the action with prejudice, holding that all but one of the challenged statements was not sufficiently alleged to be false, and that scienter was not adequately alleged for the remaining statement.  The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

On September 30, 2021, Judge Nancy E. Brasel of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against an industrial chemical manufacturer (the “Company”) and certain of its officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  In re 3M Co. Sec. Litig., No. 19-CV-2488 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company downplayed its potential legal and financial exposure over its production and disposal of toxic per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) by failing to estimate the contingent losses associated with the Company’s PFAS liabilities.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to plead an actionable misrepresentation or allegations sufficient to support a strong inference of scienter.

On September 30, 2021, Judge Katherine S. Hayden of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss an “opt-out” action arising from a pending class action that asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company, certain of its executives, and alleged “co-conspirators,” in connection with an alleged price-fixing scheme for generic drugs.  TIAA-CREF Large-Cap Growth Fund v. Allergan PLC, No. 17-CV-11089-KSH-CLW, 2021 WL 4473156 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2021).  The opt-out action also added claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and related to an illegal “market allocation” scheme.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the opt-out action, holding that the action was timely and that scienter was adequately alleged.

On September 29, 2021, Judge George J. Hazel of the District of Maryland dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Macrogenics, Inc., No. GJH-19-2713, slip op. (D. Md. Sept. 29, 2021).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants made misrepresentations regarding clinical trials for a drug that was “critically important” to the company.  The Court dismissed the action for failure to adequately allege misrepresentations or scienter.

On September 27, 2021, Judge Paul Crotty of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a cannabis company and its CEO and CFO.  Kasilingam v. Tilray, Inc., No. 20-CV-03459 (PAC), 2021 WL 4429788 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants made material misrepresentations that inflated the company’s stock price ahead of a planned share exchange.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter and dismissed the action but granted plaintiffs leave to amend to attempt to cure the deficiencies in their complaint.

On September 30, 2021, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the Southern District of New York dismissed an action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law claims for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, and negligent misrepresentation against a cannabis company and certain of its executives.  SUN, A Series Of E Squared Investment Fund, LLC, et al. v. Sundial Growers Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-03579 (ALC), slip op. (Sept. 30, 2021).  Plaintiffs were investors that allegedly acquired convertible notes prior to the company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) and later converted those notes into shares shortly after the IPO, with one also purporting to receive shares in the IPO itself.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants provided misleading information about a target entity that the company was on the verge of acquiring.  The Court dismissed the action, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the challenged statements were materially misleading in context at the time they were made, and that plaintiffs also failed to adequately allege scienter.

On September 15, 2021, Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a putative class action against a medical device manufacturer (the “Company”) and certain of its officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S v. Becton Dickinson & Co., No. 20-cv-02155 (D.N.J. Sept. 15, 2021).  Plaintiff alleged the Company made misleading statements concerning regulatory approval of one of its medical devices, its regulatory compliance program, and financial projections.  The Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice in an unpublished opinion confirming the many challenges to pleading securities fraud claims based on alleged misrepresentations regarding U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval processes.

On September 7, 2021, Judge Charles Ronald Norgle of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an online food delivery company and certain of its executives.  Azar v. Grubhub, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-07665, 2021 WL 4077327 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 7, 2021).  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding the success of its marketing and expansion initiatives.  The Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations and scienter.

On September 7, 2021, Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an infrastructure management company, certain of its executives, and the underwriter of its stock offering.  City of Riviera Beach Gen. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al., 2021 WL 4084572 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2021).  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misstatements and omissions concerning decreased demand for a particular form of fuel oil that the company stored for customers, which plaintiff alleged allowed the company to maintain an artificially high stock price while the company completed a secondary stock offering and acquired a competitor.  The Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege any misrepresentation or scienter and, therefore, dismissed the action.

On August 17, 2021, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an energy technology company and certain of its executives.  Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc., et al., No. 5:20-cv-04036-BLF, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2021).  Plaintiff alleged, based on a short seller report released the same day plaintiff’s complaint was filed, that the company misrepresented its revenues, engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices, and overstated the growth in its gross margins.  The Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege any misrepresentation or scienter and, therefore, dismissed the action, while granting plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to “rectify the defects” identified by the Court.

On August 4, 2021, Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit against a biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Kendall v. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-01828-H-LL (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021).  The Court held that plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) adequately alleged material misstatements and omissions by defendants concerning the efficacy and safety of the Company’s flagship cancer drug (tesetaxel) during the course of a Phase 3 clinical trial, and further held that plaintiff adequately alleged scienter.

On August 10, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division that dismissed a putative securities fraud class action asserting claims under Rule 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. Zebra Technologies Corp., et al, No. 20-3258 (7th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants, a commercial electronics manufacturer (the “Company”) and two of its executives, misled investors by issuing false statements about the integration of assets following the Company’s acquisition of a separate commercial electronics company.  The district court dismissed the claims, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter and falsity.  The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

On August 5, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a non-precedential opinion, affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against a multinational telecommunications company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  PAMCAH-UA Local 675 Pension Fund v. BT Group PLC, No. 20-2016 (3d Cir. 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements about its financial performance as a result of a complex, decade-long accounting fraud that occurred at its Italian subsidiary (the “Subsidiary”).  The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal on the grounds that the stronger inference from the factual allegations in the complaint as to the Company’s executives was a lack of scienter and, even if scienter was sufficiently alleged as to executives at the Subsidiary, that could not be imputed to the Company.

On July 19, 2021, Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against a clothing company (the “Company”), its executives, and its majority shareholder.  Cheng v. Can. Goose Holdings Inc., No. 19-cv-08204 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the shifting timeframe of sales in its direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) channel (the “Timing Shift” allegations), and inventory growth rates.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Consolidated First Amended Complaint (“CFAC”).

On July 20, 2021, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissing with prejudice a putative class action lawsuit asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against a wholesale retailer (the “Company”) and certain of its executives, as well as Section 20(a) claims against those individual defendants.  Davoli, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., No. 20-35821 (9th Cir. July 20, 2021).  Plaintiff alleges that defendants made false statements regarding the strength of the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.  The district court dismissed plaintiff’s Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) for failure to adequately plead scienter and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  The Panel’s unpublished opinion cannot be cited as precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit rules.

On July 6, 2021, Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a Canadian company that manufactures and distributes cannabis products (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  In re Aurora Cannabis, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 19-cv-20588 (JMV) (JBC), slip op. (D.N.J. July 6, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made material misstatements and omissions relating to the Company’s earnings projections that allegedly failed to disclose certain headwinds in the industry.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to identify any materially false or misleading statements, and also noted weaknesses in plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to the scienter and loss causation requirements.  Accordingly, the Court dismissed the first amended complaint in its entirety, but granted plaintiffs leave to replead to cure the identified defects.

On June 16, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against a technology company and certain of its executives.  In re Alphabet, Inc. Sec. Litig., –F.3d–, 2021 WL 2448223 (9th Cir. 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to disclose a security flaw that risked exposing customer data on its social networking site to third-party developers without customer consent.  The district court granted a motion to dismiss, determining that the complaint failed to allege any misrepresentation or omission and failed to adequately allege scienter.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations and scienter.  However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of certain allegations that it held were too vague to be actionable.

On May 28, 2021, Judge K. Michael Moore of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a cruise line (the “Company”) and its CEO for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements and omissions about the risks posed by COVID-19 and the Company’s health and safety protocols during the early stages of the pandemic.  Consistent with another recent decision covered here, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for failure to adequately plead falsity and scienter, but granted leave to amend.

On May 20, 2021, Judge Dora L. Irizarry of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a car manufacturer and certain of its current and former Board members.  Mucha v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2021 WL 2006079 (E.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged the company engaged in anticompetitive conduct which rendered a number of statements in the company’s SEC filings false or misleading.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that the alleged misstatements were false, and therefore dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

On May 19, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action involving claims brought under Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against a sports apparel company (the “Company”) and one of its executives.  In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, No. 17-cv-00388 (D. Md. May 19, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented the Company’s financial health and the demand for its products by engaging in “channel stuffing”—the practice of pulling forward sales from a future quarter, thereby shifting earnings into earlier quarters—relying in part on a settlement between the Company and the SEC and the $9 million civil penalty paid in connection with the settlement to resolve similar allegations.

On May 6, 2021, Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against the largest cannabis company in Canada (the “Company”) and several of its officers for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Ortiz v. Canopy Growth Corp., No. 19-cv-20543 (D.N.J. May 6, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged the Company made numerous false and misleading statements and omissions about the Company’s inventory levels.  Although the Court held that certain of the Company’s representations regarding inventory and revenue in its financial statements were statements of opinion that were actionable, the Court ultimately dismissed these claims because plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter.

​On April 26, 2021, Judge Sara L. Ellis of the Northern District of Illinois 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”) against a financial services provider (the “Company”) and two of its executives.  Heavy & General Laborers’ Local 472 & 172 Pension and Annuity Funds v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et. al., No. 20-C-2176 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 26, 2021).  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a putative class of investors who allegedly purchased and sold securities of the Company during the putative class period, alleged that defendants made materially misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices that were the subject of a federal investigation.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint without prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead scienter.

On April 10, 2021, Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a cruise line and certain of its executives.  Douglas v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, No. 20-21107-CIV, 2021 WL 1378296 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2021).  Plaintiff alleged the company made misrepresentations in February 2020 regarding the impact of COVID-19 on its business.  The Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege any actionable misrepresentations or scienter.

​On April 8, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Central District of California’s dismissal with prejudice of a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an investment bank, certain of its executives, and one of its research analysts.  Prodanova v. H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC,—F.3d—, 2021 WL 1307882 (9th Cir. 2021).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants had attempted to increase a company’s stock price by publishing a bullish analyst report shortly before the company announced that the bank would serve as the exclusive placement agent for an offering of the company’s shares.  The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege a strong inference of scienter.

On March 31, 2021, Judge Alfred H. Bennett of the Southern District of Texas denied a motion to dismiss claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against a company that operates live adult entertainment businesses and bar-restaurants (the “Company”) and certain of its executives, as well as members of its audit, compensation, and nominating committees.  Hoffman, et al v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al, No. 4:19-cv-01841 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants made misleading statements or omissions concerning certain related-party transactions (RPTs), executive compensation, and other financial points in several of the Company’s Form 10-K annual reports.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, holding that plaintiffs sufficiently pled material misstatements and scienter.
 

On April 1, 2021, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the Eastern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a claim under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, against a surgical implants manufacturer (the “Company”) and certain of its current and former officers.  Lowry v. RTI Surgical Holdings Inc., No. 20-cv-01939 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s accounting and revenue recognition practices which caused a stock drop once corrective disclosures were made.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, holding that plaintiffs sufficiently pled material misstatements and scienter.
 

On March 29, 2021, Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss a consolidated putative class action complaint against a medical device manufacturer and marketer (the “Company”) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In re Merit Med. Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 8:19-02326 DOC (ADSx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company issued misleading statements regarding its acquisitions of two companies in late 2018 including with respect to the integration of those companies and their products sales.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, adopting a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth, which found that most of the challenged statements were not forward-looking statements protected by the PSLRA’s safe harbor provisions and that plaintiffs had adequately pled all elements of their claims. 

On March 22, 2021, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed certain of the claims asserted in a putative class action brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a technology company and certain of its executives.  City of Sunrise Firefighters’ Pension Fund, et al. v. Oracle Corporation, et al., No. 18-cv-04844-BLF, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding its transition from locally installed software to cloud-based products, which plaintiffs alleged was driven through undisclosed “coercive sales practices.”  After the Court dismissed an earlier iteration of the complaint without prejudice for failure to allege any actionable misstatements, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The Court held that a number of allegations failed to establish falsity or scienter, but permitted some claims to go forward against certain defendants on a limited theory of liability.

On March 19, 2021, Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a transportation and logistics company and certain of its executives.  Labul, et al. v. XPO Logistics, et al., No. 3:18-cv-2062 (SRU), slip op. (D. Conn. Mar. 19, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company misrepresented the extent to which it relied on a single customer to drive revenue growth and the financial impact of declining business from that customer.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege the existence of material misrepresentations, scienter, or loss causation, and therefore dismissed the action.

On March 13, 2021, Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss claims brought under Sections 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b5-1 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), against a Norwegian browser services company (the “Company”), its individual directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering (the “IPO”). Lau v. Opera Limited et al., No. 1:2020-cv-00674 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company’s IPO offering materials contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions, and defendants made false or misleading statements in other documents and analyst calls regarding the Company’s market share and entry into the “fintech” market.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint (the “CCAC”), with leave to amend.
 

On March 12, 2021, Judge Denise Casper of the District of Massachusetts granted a motion to dismiss a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, against a robot vacuum cleaner (“RVC”) manufacturer (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  In re iRobot Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 19-cv-12536-DJC (D. Mass. Mar. 12, 2021). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s ability to compete within the RVC market.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint (the “CAC”), holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead material misstatements and scienter.
 

On March 8, 2021, Judge Lewis J. Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action against a midstream oil company (the “Company”), its general partner, and an infrastructure firm that was an affiliate of the general partner and acquired the Company (the “Firm”), as well as certain of the Company’s officers and directors, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Kraft v. Third Coast Midstream, No. 19-cv-9398 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company and the Firm orchestrated a scheme to manipulate the price of the Company’s common units (“CUs”) through a series of misstatements and omissions so that the Firm could acquire the Company at a deflated price.  The Court dismissed the claims for failure to plead any actionable misstatement or omission or a manipulative act, as well as loss causation or scienter.
 

On March 1, 2021, Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a telecommunications company and certain of its executives.  Salim v. Mobile Telesystems PJSC, No. 19-CV-1589 (AMD) (RLM), slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations with respect to an alleged scheme to bribe foreign officials.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any misrepresentations or scienter and therefore dismissed the complaint.
 

On March 2, 2021, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 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 and certain of its executives.  Iron Workers Loc. 580 Jt. Funds v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 18-CV-07669-HSG, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding its sales of graphic processing units (“GPUs”) for computer gaming and the proportion of such sales that were actually made to cryptocurrency miners—for which demand was allegedly more volatile.  As discussed in our prior post, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ original complaint for failure to adequately allege misrepresentations or scienter, but granted leave to replead.  After plaintiffs amended their complaint, defendants moved again to dismiss and also moved to strike certain allegations attributed to a confidential witness.  The Court denied the motion to strike but concluded that the amended complaint failed to cure the prior deficiencies with respect to scienter, and therefore dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
 

On February 26, 2021, Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its officers.  In re Alkermes Public Ltd. Co. Sec. Litig., No. 18-CV-7410 (LDH) (RML), slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Feb 26, 2021).  Plaintiff alleged defendants made misstatements concerning clinical trials for a drug that ultimately did not secure FDA approval.  The Court held that plaintiff failed to allege facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter and therefore dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
 

On February 22, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a business development financing company (the “Company”) and three of its executives.  In re Triangle Capital Corporation Sec. Lit., No. 19-2162 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company persisted in a risky investment strategy without adequately disclosing its risks.  The District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed the first amended complaint for failure to adequately allege scienter and denied as futile plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend again.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed and dismissed the action with prejudice, holding that the factual allegations related to “legitimate, subjective business judgments” and that, “to the extent we can make any inference of scienter from these allegations, it is exceptionally weak.”
 

On February 4, 2021, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss putative class action claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, against a global logistics and shipping company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  In re FedEx Securities Litigation, No. 19-cv-05990 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the financial impacts to the Company resulting from a cyberattack affecting a recently acquired European shipping subsidiary (the “Subsidiary”).  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint (the “CAC”) with prejudice.

On January 7, 2021, Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. of the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss, with prejudice, in 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 SEC Regulation S-K, Item 303, against a life insurance company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  Parchmann v. Metlife, et al., No. 18-cv-00780-SJ-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2021).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants made materially misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial condition and internal controls with respect to one of the Company’s Retirement and Income Solution (“RIS”) programs.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding, among other things, that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity, loss causation, and scienter.
 

On January 11, 2021, the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished decision affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal at the pleading stage of Section 10(b) claims under the Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical manufacturer (the “Company”) and several of its officers for alleged misstatements regarding an alleged price fixing scheme and the performance of one of its generic drugs.  N.Y. Hotels Trades Council & Hotel Association of NYC Inc. Pension Fund et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., et al., No. 19-16744 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2021).  The Court held that plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) adequately alleged falsity with respect to statements allegedly made by defendants concerning the performance of one of the Company’s drugs (diclofenac) as well forward-looking statements regarding earnings projections and revenue guidance, and further held that plaintiffs adequately alleged loss causation.  Our prior analysis of the district court’s decision can be found here.
 

On January 5, 2021, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a data analytics company (the “Company”) for alleged violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Item 303 of Regulation S-K (“Item 303”).  In re Nielsen Holdings PLC Securities Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-07143 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged the Company made misstatements about the financial performance of some of its business segments and the impact of the enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) in the European Union on the Company’s measurement and analytics services.  The Court dismissed some of plaintiffs’ claims, pared down others based on the Company’s knowledge at the time of certain alleged misstatements, and granted plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend.
 

On December 30, 2020, 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 against a biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Malquin v. Nektar Therapeutics, No. 18-cv-06607 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements and omissions about the efficacy of its flagship cancer drug in development.  The Court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, confirming that securities claims cannot be based on allegations that a company failed to use the best or preferred statistical methods for evaluating the effectiveness of a new drug and that short seller reports will not constitute corrective disclosures sufficient to allege loss causation unless the reports can be characterized plausibly as revealing new information to the market.
 

On December 10, 2020, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, against a social media platform (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  In re Twitter Securities Litigation, No. 19-cv-07149 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s advertising products and revenue predictions that caused the Company’s stock price to drop more than 20% when the Company made purportedly corrective disclosures.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint (the “CCAC”), but granted plaintiffs leave to replead.
 

On November 30, 2020, Judge Noel L. Hillman of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed without prejudice a putative securities class action against a food and snack company (the “Company”) and certain of its top executives for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  In Re Campbell Soup Co. Securities Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-14385 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and omissions concerning the profitability of its fresh foods division (the “Fresh Foods Division”).  The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because plaintiffs failed to allege scienter.
 

On November 30, 2020, Judge William H. Pauley III of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a weight loss company (the “Company”), certain of its officers and directors, and its largest shareholder.  In re Weight Watchers Int’l Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 19-cv-2005 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements and omissions about its strategic rebranding initiative.  The Court dismissed these claims because plaintiffs failed to allege falsity, observing that plaintiffs’ claims “have little bearing on disclosure . . . and are [instead] fundamentally about corporate mismanagement.”  Although the Court concluded that plaintiffs’ failure to allege an actionable misrepresentation was sufficient to dismiss the case, the Court addressed the parties’ remaining arguments, including two issues on which the Second Circuit has yet to weigh in, holding that:  (1) the exercise of stock options can be considered for the purpose of determining whether an individual’s stock sales are sufficient to allege scienter; and (2) a selling shareholder is not a “statutory seller” for purposes of Section 12(a)(2) simply because it signed the registration statement.  The Court also held that the selling shareholder was not a “maker” of the allegedly misleading statements and thus could not be held liable under Section 10(b).
 

On November 16, 2020, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a Section 10(b) claim under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), as well as a Section 20(a) claim under the Exchange Act as it relates to the Section 10(b) claim, against a lead-acid battery recycler (the “Company”) and three of its senior officers.  In re Aqua Metals Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 17-cv-07142 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s novel recycling technology and its commercialization process.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead any actionable material misstatements or scienter.  Certain claims in the case addressed in connection with a prior motion to dismiss were not the subject of this decision and will survive.
 

On November 10, 2020, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed without prejudice a putative class action against a software company (the “Company”) and several of its officers, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Reidinger v. Zendesk Inc. et al., No. 3:19-cv-06968 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s performance and sales capabilities in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (“EMEA”) and the Asian Pacific (“APAC”) and the strength of its data security.  The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because plaintiff failed to allege falsity or scienter, highlighting the formidable challenges plaintiffs face in pleading event-driven claims based on worse than expected earnings results.
 

On November 4, 2020, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss claims asserted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a technology company and certain of its executives.  In re Apple Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 19-cv-02033-YGR, slip. op. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2020), ECF No. 118.  Plaintiffs alleged that the company and its CEO made material misstatements relating to the company’s earnings guidance, which the company ultimately did not meet.  Slip. op. at 4.  The Court dismissed claims based on certain of the alleged misstatements, which it held were not false or misleading, but determined that falsity and scienter were sufficiently alleged as to other alleged misstatements.
 

On October 26, 2020, Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. of the Eastern District of Virginia denied motions 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”) against a building products company (the “Company”), certain of its executives, and an institutional majority shareholder of the Company.  Cambridge Retirement System v. Jeld-Wen Holding, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-112 (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants made material misstatements and omissions concerning the Company’s pricing strategy, alleged anti-competitive conduct, and the impact of a finding of liability in a separate antitrust private suit.  The Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint, holding that plaintiffs adequately pled material misrepresentations or omissions, falsity, scienter and loss causation.
 

On October 15, 2020, Judge Martha M. Pacold of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against a large packaged foods company (the “Company”), as well as certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters.  W. Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., No. 19-cv-101323, 2020 WL 6118605 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that, in connection with a secondary public offering (“SPO”) to finance the acquisition of another packaged foods company (the “Acquired Company”), the Company failed to disclose that the Acquired Company had engaged in channel stuffing—a form of accounting fraud—to disguise the fact its key brands were struggling.  The Court dismissed these claims in their entirety because, among other reasons, plaintiffs failed to allege adequately that the Acquired Company engaged in fraudulent channel stuffing.
 

On October 7, 2020, Judge Allison Burroughs of the District of Massachusetts granted in full 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”) against a cloud-based remote software services company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  Wasson v. LogMeIn Inc., No. 18-cv-12330 (D. Mass. Oct. 7, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s integration of a newly acquired competitor.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead any actionable material misstatements or scienter, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
 

On October 8, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of 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 Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against a federally chartered savings bank and its holding company (collectively the “Bank”) and several of its executives, for alleged misstatements regarding the Bank’s underwriting standards, internal controls, and compliance program.  In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 18-55415 (9th Cir. Oct. 8, 2020).  The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, holding that although plaintiffs adequately pled material misstatements and scienter, plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead loss causation.  The Ninth Circuit (with Judge Paul J. Watford writing for the majority) vacated the dismissal, holding that plaintiffs sufficiently pled loss causation based on a whistleblower lawsuit filed by a former employee.  Judge Kenneth K. Lee concurred in part and dissented in part.
 

On September 28, 2020, Judge Dale A. Kimball of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action asserting violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against an online home goods retailer (the “Company”) and certain of its current and former officers.  Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. v. Overstock.com, No. 2:19-CV-709-DAK-DAO (D. Utah Sept. 28, 2020).  Plaintiff, a short seller, alleged that the Company (i) manipulated the market by issuing a digital dividend through the Company’s newly developed alternative trading platform and triggering a “short squeeze,” and (ii) misrepresented the purpose of the digital dividend by not disclosing it would result in a short squeeze and the Company’s financial condition by adjusting its earnings guidance upwards.  The Court dismissed the claims because they were based on “speculation and fraud-by-hindsight.”
 

On September 17, 2020, Judge Rachel P. Kovner of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed without prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a cosmetics company and certain of its executives.  Lachman v. Revlon, Inc., No. 19-CV-2859 RPK RER, 2020 WL 5577406 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding a new software system that was supposed to combine the tracking of different areas of the company’s operations but allegedly led instead to production delays, lost sales, and a material weakness in the company’s internal controls with respect to financial reporting.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to identify any actionable misstatement or to plead that defendants acted with scienter.
 

On September 11, 2020, Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California denied 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 Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against a software company (the “Company”) and two of its executive officers.  Scheller v. Nutanix Inc., No. 19-cv-01651 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2020).  This case was previously dismissed with leave to amend by Judge Orrick in March, and was covered in our newsletter.  Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in an attempt to cure the prior pleading defects.  The Court noted that the SAC “suffers from many of the same deficiencies as [the] prior complaint” and held that certain categories of allegations were insufficient, but the Court allowed certain claims to proceed.
 

On September 9, 2020, Judge Lucy H. Koh 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 class action against a medical device company (the “Company”) and certain of its executive officers under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  SEC Investment Mgmt. AB, et al. v. Align Technology, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-06720-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that the Company made false or misleading statements regarding its strategies to curb competition in the market.  Plaintiff also asserted an insider trading claim against the Company’s CEO.  The Court largely granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead falsity for all but one alleged misrepresentation and, for the insider trading claim, that the trading activities of plaintiff and the CEO were not “contemporaneous.”
 

On September 1, 2020, Judge Charles R. Norgle of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  Holwill v. AbbVie Inc., No. 1:18-cv-6790, slip. op. (N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made material misstatements regarding the reasons for the success of the company’s principal drug that were rendered misleading because the company failed to disclose a kickback scheme that allegedly contributed to the drug’s success.  The Court held that the complaint adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations as well as the elements of scienter and loss causation.
 

On August 28, 2020, Judge Cynthia Rufe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied three separate motions to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a biopharmaceutical company, its CEO, and its Chief Medical Officer.  Tomaszewski v. Trevena, Inc., No. 18-cv-4378, slip op. (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company and its executives made various misrepresentations and omissions regarding interactions with the FDA concerning a drug candidate.  The Court denied the motions of the company and CEO, after granting plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain documents on which those motions relied, and further held that plaintiffs adequately alleged actionable misstatements and scienter with respect to the Chief Medical Officer (“CMO”).
 

On August 25, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities fraud class action asserting violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) as well as Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 against a medical robotics company (the “Company”) as well as certain of its officers.  Yan v. ReWalk Robotics Ltd., et al., No. 19-1614, 2020 WL 5014858 (1st Cir. Aug. 25, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false or misleading statements and omissions in its IPO registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) and subsequent quarterly and annual disclosures concerning its dealings with the Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) regarding one of the Company’s devices.  The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Securities Act claims, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege a material misstatement or omission.  Although it disagreed with the district court’s reasoning in dismissing the Exchange Act claims for lack of standing, the First Circuit nevertheless found that the Exchange Act claims were properly dismissed because plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a material misstatement or scienter.
 

On August 14, 2020, United States District Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 against an insurance company (the “Company”) as well as certain of its officers, who were members of the family that founded the Company and were long-time controlling stockholders.  Martinek v. Amtrust Fin. Serv., Inc., No. 19 Civ. 8030 (KPF), 2020 WL 4735189 (S.D.N.Y. August 14, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that the Company made false or misleading statements and omissions about whether the Company’s preferred stock would continue to trade on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) following a proposed buyout of the common stock by the controlling stockholders.  The Court largely denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff had adequately alleged scienter and the falsity of two categories of alleged misstatements. 
 

On August 6, 2020, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a sports entertainment company and certain of its executives.  City of Warren Police & Fire Ret. Sys., v. World Wrestling Ent. Inc., No. 20-CV-2031 (JSR), 2020 WL 4547217, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations about its media contracts in the Middle East and North Africa (“MENA”).  The Court held that the complaint, “while not a model of clarity, adequately alleges an overall claim of securities fraud,” including with respect to actionable misrepresentations, scienter, and loss causation.
 

On August 3, 2020, the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of Exchange Act claims against a real estate investment trust (the “Company”) and several of its senior officers for alleged misstatements regarding the financial health of one of the Company’s healthcare facility operators (the “Operator”).  In re Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 19-1095 (2d Cir. Aug. 3, 2020).  The district court had granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding that although plaintiffs adequately pled material misstatements, they failed to sufficiently plead scienter.  The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal, holding that plaintiffs sufficiently pled scienter based on defendants’ alleged consciously reckless omission of certain material information that made certain statements in public filings and conference calls regarding the financial health of the Operator misleading.
 

On August 6, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in a summary order the judgment of the district court that granted defendants’ motion to dismiss certain claims in a putative securities class action, while vacating the district court’s decision on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.  Colbert v. Rio Tinto PLC, et al., No. 19-2711 (2d Cir. Aug. 6, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants—a mining company (“the Company”) and certain of its officers—violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making materially false or misleading statements with respect to certain business investments.  The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in a summary order, but reversed the denial of the motion for reconsideration, holding that the district court incorrectly refused to reconsider the determination that plaintiff had abandoned his claim by not explicitly opposing dismissal of the claim.  Summary orders do not have binding precedential effect.
 

On July 21, 2020, Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an information technology and software company, certain of its executives, and the underwriters for the company’s IPO.  In re Pivotal Sec. Litig., No. 3:19-cv-3589, slip op. (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2020), ECF No. 100.  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misleading statements in IPO offering documents and in subsequent public statements regarding its financial and business condition.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any actionable misstatement or omission, and further that plaintiffs failed to establish that the alleged misstatements with respect to the Exchange Act claims were made with scienter.  However, the Court granted leave to amend as to certain allegations.
 

On July 16, 2020, Judge Jesse Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action against a Chinese computer application developer and certain of its executives asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Marcu v. Cheetah Mobile Inc., No. 18-CV-11184 (JMF), 2020 WL 4016645 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2020).  Plaintiffs asserted an “omissions case”;  i.e., they alleged that the company made statements regarding its revenue, the popularity of its applications, and the importance of the Google Play store to its business model that were rendered misleading because the company did not disclose an alleged scheme through which the company earned improper referral bonuses on application downloads.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the challenged statements were false or misleading or made with scienter.  Because plaintiffs had previously been granted leave to amend their complaint, and the Court found nothing to suggest that the deficiencies identified could be cured, the Court denied leave to amend.
 

On July 8, 2020, United States District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a putative securities fraud class action asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 against a large online home goods retailer (the “Company”) and its three most senior executives (collectively, “Defendants”).  In re Wayfair, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civ. No. 19-10062-DPW (D. Mass. July 8, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants falsely implied that the Company was profitable and that it was experiencing positive advertising-revenue leverage—meaning that the Company was becoming more effective at generating revenue for every advertising dollar spent.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss because plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any material misstatements or omissions, scienter, or loss causation.  Notably, the Court repeatedly called attention to the absence of factual support for the allegations and described the complaint as “precisely the kind of pleading the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was designed to prevent.”
 

On June 12, 2020, Judge Kevin McNulty of the of United States District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action asserting violations of Sections 9(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against a Chinese manufacturer of wheels for commercial vehicles (the “Company”) as well as the Company’s CEO and CFO (collectively, “Defendants”).  He v. China Zenix Auto Int’l Ltd. et al., Civ. No. 2:18-cv-15530, 2020 WL 31695006 (D.N.J. June 12, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that, in an effort to prevent the Company from being de-listed by the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”), certain of the Company’s employees engaged in improper trading that artificially inflated the Company’s stock price.  Plaintiffs further alleged that the Company’s ongoing statements regarding its compliance with NYSE listing requirements were materially misleading, because these statements did not disclose that it achieved compliance only as a result of improper trading.  The Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the Section 10(b) claims against the Company and the CEO, but granted the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims against the CFO for failure to adequately allege scienter.  The Court dismissed the Section 9(a) claims for failure to adequately allege a series of purportedly manipulative transactions.
 

On June 16, 2020, Judge Gregory H. Woods of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against a biotech company (the “Company”) as well as certain of its officers (collectively, “Defendants”).  Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al., Civ. No. 1:19-cv-6137, 2020 WL 3268495 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants falsely stated that the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) agreed that it would approve the Company’s New Drug Application for EDSIVO, a drug for the treatment of Vascular Ehlers-Danolos Syndrome (“vEDS”), a rare genetic connective tissue disorder.  The Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to most of the alleged misstatements, because plaintiffs adequately alleged falsity and scienter.
 

On June 12, 2020, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a purported securities class action against a peer-to-peer lending company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers under Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Veal v. LendingClub Corporation, et. al., No. 5:18-cv-02599 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made misstatements and omissions regarding an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) into the Company’s allegedly deceptive conduct related to certain consumer practices.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims (mostly without prejudice), because plaintiffs failed to adequately allege falsity or scienter.
 

On June 5, 2020, Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a government services company and certain of its executives under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Emps. Ret. Sys. of the Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth. v. Conduent Inc., No. CV-19-8237-SDW-SCM, 2020 WL 3026536 (D.N.J. June 5, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that the company had overstated the progress it was making in modernizing the IT infrastructure that supported its electronic toll collection business.  The Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations, as well as scienter and loss causation.
 

On June 5, 2020, Judge Esther Salas of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey sustained in part a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against an information technology services company and certain of its current and former executives.  In re Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. Sec. Lit., No. 16-6509 (D.N.J. June 5, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations promoting the advantages of its facilities in India by failing to disclose an alleged scheme to bribe government officials to secure permits necessary to operate one such facility.  After portions of their prior complaint were dismissed by the late Judge Walls without prejudice, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the case was transferred to Judge Salas.  Relying in part on the prior decision as law of the case, the Court held that plaintiffs’ allegations, which were drawn primarily from a government investigation, sufficiently alleged actionable misstatements and scienter.
 

On June 10, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities class action against a medical device company and certain of its executives under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc., ––F.3d––, 2020 WL 3069776 (9th Cir. 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that the company’s statements regarding the likelihood of Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval of a new product were misleading because the device had allegedly experienced problems following its earlier introduction in the European market.  Explaining that implausible allegations cannot create a strong inference of scienter, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff’s allegations failed to satisfy the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) because plaintiff’s core theory of the case had no basis in logic or common experience.  Because plaintiff had already had an opportunity to replead, the Court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice.
 

On June 1, 2020, Judge Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss securities claims against an “ultra-low fare” airline company (the “Company”) and its chief executive.  City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension System v. Ryanair Holdings plc et al., No. 18-cv-10330 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misstatements concerning the Company’s labor practices and profitability.  The Court granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity, materiality, and scienter for all but one category of alleged misstatements, but granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.
 

On June 2, 2020, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California granted in part 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 Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against a multinational technology company (the “Company”) and two of its senior executives.  In re Apple Securities Litigation, No. 4:19-cv-02033 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company’s flagship product and its China business.  The Court stripped away most of plaintiff’s allegations, holding that those alleged misrepresentations failed to sufficiently allege falsity, scienter, and loss causation, but let remain two alleged misstatements made by the Company’s CEO to analysts that it found to be sufficiently pled.
 

On May 27, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed a putative class action brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against two manufacturers of medical equipment (the “Companies”).  Jackson v. Abernathy, No. 19-1300-CV, 2020 WL 2755690 (2d Cir. May 27, 2020).  Plaintiff claimed that the Companies (one of which was spun off from the other, and both of which manufactured the product at issue) intentionally misled shareholders about the protective qualities of their surgical gown product.  The district court had dismissed the action with prejudice and subsequently denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.  The Court affirmed the district court’s denial, holding that the proposed amendments failed to adequately plead corporate scienter.
 

On May 18, 2020, Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against a consumer and industrial products company and certain of its executives.  Kanefsky v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 18-cv-15536, slip op. (D.N.J. May 18, 2020), ECF No. 106.  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations in SEC filings and public statements regarding the projected asbestos liability arising from its acquisition of a manufacturer of automobile brakes.  The Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged falsity, scienter, and loss causation as to certain alleged misstatements.
 

On April 28, 2020, Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against an enterprise software company and certain of its executives.  Roberts v. Zuora, Inc., No. 19-cv-03422-SI, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2020), ECF No. 75.  Plaintiff alleged that, prior to its initial public offering, the company misstated that its two flagship products could be integrated together and that such integration was a key part of its business strategy, when in fact the product integration was not functional.  The Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged that such statements were false or misleading and made with the requisite scienter.
 

On April 30, 2020, Chief Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against a company that supports and operates blockchain technologies and certain of its executives and investors.  Takata v. Riot Blockchain, Inc., No. 18-02293 (FLW), slip op. (D. N.J. Apr. 30, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants engaged in a “pump-and-dump” scheme to inflate the price of the company’s stock before selling to unsuspecting retail investors.  Id.  The Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege any actionable misrepresentations and otherwise failed to establish “scheme” liability, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
 

On April 28, 2020, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against a biopharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  Schaeffer v. Nabriva Therapeutics plc, No. 19-cv-4183, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2020), ECF No. 40.  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made false or misleading statements suggesting that a drug it submitted to the FDA for marketing approval would be approved in 2019.  The Court held that the alleged misstatements were either non-actionable puffery, or were protected forward-looking statements, or were not sufficiently alleged to have been made with scienter.
 

On April 8, 2020, Chief Judge G. Murray Snow of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action filed against a renewable energy company (“Company”) and its executives, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  Zhu v. Taronis Techs. Inc., 2020 WL 1703680 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants misled investors about the existence of a contract with the City of San Diego.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss as to plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 10b-5(b) but granted the motion as to claims asserted under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c).
 

On April 15, 2020, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against a designer and manufacturer of electric cars (the “Company”), its co-founder and CEO and its directors.  In re Tesla Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:18-cv-04865 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that the statements made by the Company’s CEO on Twitter regarding securing funding for a going-private transaction were materially misleading.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that plaintiff adequately pleaded falsity, scienter, and loss causation.
 

On April 10, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against a large American retailer (the “Company”) and certain of its current and former executives for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 10b-5.  In re Target Corp. Sec. Litig., 2020 WL 1814268 (8th Cir. 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made materially misleading statements about problems facing the Company’s Canadian subsidiary (“Canadian Subsidiary”), which filed for bankruptcy less than two years after opening in the Canadian market.  The district court dismissed the action, holding that plaintiffs failed to meet the pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), and denied reconsideration and leave to amend.  The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead scienter adequately for any of the alleged misleading statements and falsity for some of the alleged misstatements. 
 

On April 6, 2020, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York partially granted a motion to dismiss claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives, and then granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for class certification.  In re Mylan N.V. Sec. Litig., No. 16-CV-7926 (JPO), 2020 WL 1673811 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020).  As noted in our prior posts regarding the company’s motions to dismiss the first and second amended complaints, plaintiffs alleged that defendants made misleading statements regarding, among other things, an alleged rebate scheme involving the company’s EpiPen, and that defendants engaged in an illegal conspiracy to inflate the prices for various of the company’s generic drugs.  After plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint attempting to address deficiencies identified by the Court in its prior opinions, the Court held that plaintiffs had met their burden to plead scienter with respect to some, but not all, of the alleged misstatements.
 

On April 2, 2020, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a manufacturer of automotive seating and certain of its executives.  In re Adient PLC Sec. Lit., No. 18-CV-9116 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made false and misleading statements with respect to improvements in the projected margin of “Adient,” a business spun off of its parent company, and in a particular Adient business segment (the “Metals” segment).  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege an actionable misstatement or scienter, and, noting that plaintiffs had already voluntarily amended their complaint after defendants filed a previous motion to dismiss, denied leave to amend.

On April 9, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  Gallagher v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., No. 19-1557 (1st Cir. Apr. 9, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding manufacturing processes that served as the basis for the FDA’s rejection of the company’s New Drug Application (“NDA”).  The lower court dismissed the action for failure to allege an actionable misstatement or omission or to sufficiently allege scienter.  The First Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support a strong inference of scienter. 
 

On March 12, 2020, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a shoe manufacturer and certain of its executives.  In re Skechers USA, Inc. Sec. Lit., No. 18-CV-8039 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misstatements and omissions in earnings calls and SEC filings regarding the growth rate of expenses in comparison to the growth rate of sales.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege either an actionable misrepresentation or scienter, and denied leave to amend.

 

On March 16, 2020, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action against a technology company and its executives asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Iron Workers Loc. 580 Jt. Funds v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 18-CV-07669-HSG, 2020 WL 1244936 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding its sales of graphic processing units (“GPUs”) for computer gaming and the proportion of such sales that were actually made to cryptocurrency miners—for which demand was allegedly more volatile.  The Court dismissed the action, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that the alleged misstatements were materially false or made with scienter, while permitting plaintiffs to file an amended complaint to attempt to cure these deficiencies.

 

On March 2, 2020, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative securities fraud class action asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against a foreign insurance company (the “Company”) and certain current and former officers (the “individual defendants,” and collectively, “defendants”).  Long v. Fanhua Inc. et al., No. 1:18-CV-08183 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2020).  Plaintiff, who commenced the action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company’s American Depository Shares (“ADSs”), alleged that defendants failed to disclose certain related-party dealings and that the Company’s stock price declined once those dealings were disclosed to the market.  The Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and held that plaintiff’s reliance on uncorroborated short-seller reports was insufficient to state a claim. 
 

On February 25, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a money-transfer services company and certain of its former executives.  Smallen v. W. Union Co.,—F.3d—, 2020 WL 893826 (10th Cir. 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations in SEC filings and public statements concerning its compliance with anti-money laundering and anti-fraud laws.  The lower court determined that plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter.  Id. at *1.  The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that, although the complaint “may give rise to some plausible inference of culpability,” it fell short of the heightened standard imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”).  Id.

 

On February 27, 2020, Judge Loretta A. Preska of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a precious metals mining company and certain of its executives.  In Re Pretium Resources Inc. Sec. Lit., No. 18-CV-08199 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misleading public statements expressing confidence in an existing plan for a particular gold mine, notwithstanding substantially increased excavation costs the mine was facing.  As noted by the Court and discussed in our prior post, the Southern District of New York previously dismissed another action filed against the company regarding alleged misrepresentations relating to its projections for the same mine.  Here, too, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to allege an actionable omission or scienter.
 

On February 6, 2020, Judge James S. Moody, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed a putative class action asserting violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against a foodservice equipment company (the “Company”) and certain of its former officers.  Metropolitan Transportation Authority Defined Benefit Pension Plan Master Trust v. Welbilt Inc., No. 8:18-cv-03007 (M.D. Fl. Feb. 6, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made misleading statements about its disclosure controls in quarterly and annual reports from February 2017 to November 2018, and that its share price fell after it revealed that its financial statements should not be relied upon because of various accounting and reporting errors.  The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to give rise to a strong inference of scienter.
 

On February 7, 2020, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss a putative securities class action against an automotive aftermarket parts provider (the “Company”), certain members of its management (the “Company Individual Defendants”), a hedge fund that owned approximately four percent of the Company’s shares, and the fund’s Chief Executive Officer who was a member of the Company’s board of directors.  In re Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Sec. Litig., No. CV-18-212-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making misleading misstatements and omissions about the Company’s projected growth and financial condition.  The Court dismissed the claims to the extent it found them to be puffery or lacking sufficient allegations of falsity, but denied the motion with respect to claims based on statements related to projections and opinions regarding the Company’s financial outlook. 
 

On February 4, 2020, Judge James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a food supplement company and certain of its former executives.  In Re TerraVia Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 16-CV-06633-JD, 2020 WL 553939 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding the health benefits and commercial viability of certain ingredients it created and sourced for its food manufacturing partners, based on the company having received reports that these ingredients were causing illnesses, ultimately leading to product recalls.  The Court held that certain of the alleged misstatements were non-actionable, but that plaintiffs’ allegations respecting certain other alleged misstatements were sufficient to state a claim.

On February 4, 2020, Judge Catherine C. Blake of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed certain claims in a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a media company and certain of its executives.  In re Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., slip op., No. 18-cv-2445 (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made various misstatements to the FCC in connection with an ultimately unsuccessful merger with another media company, and that the company had engaged in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy regarding advertising rates.  The Court dismissed most of plaintiffs’ claims, but held that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged falsity and scienter with respect to certain specific statements concerning proposed divestitures in connection with the merger.

On February 4, 2020, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a tobacco company and certain of its executives.  In re Philip Morris Int’l Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 18-CV-08049 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations in securities filings and public statements regarding clinical studies it published in connection with its application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to sell its vapor-based product in the United States and to market it as presenting a lower risk than traditional tobacco products.  Plaintiffs also alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding sales growth in Japan for the same product.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to allege an actionable misstatement or omission or to establish scienter, but granted leave to amend with respect to certain allegations.

On December 30, 2019, Judge Robert B. Kugler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action raised under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against a student loan servicer (the “Company”) and certain of its officers (collectively “Defendants”).  In Re Navient Corp. Secs. Litig., No. CV 17-8373 (RBK/AMD), 2019 WL 7288881 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2019).  Plaintiff claimed that Defendants made false or misleading statements about lawsuits brought against the Company by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and several State Attorneys Generals (“AGs”) for a “forbearance scheme” that allegedly harmed student borrowers in the repayment process.  The Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that plaintiff adequately pleaded falsity, scienter, and loss causation.

On December 10, 2019, Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a life science company specializing in cannabidiols (“CBD”) and certain of the company’s executives.  In re CV Sciences, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2019 WL 6718086 (D. Nev. Dec. 10, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misleading statements that a CBD product was proprietary and had a patent application pending by failing to disclose that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) had rejected its patent application twice, including a “final rejection” on the ground that the proposed invention was obvious.  Id. at *1.  The Court held that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged the falsity of the alleged misrepresentations at the motion-to-dismiss stage, and therefore declined to dismiss the complaint.

On December 3, 2019, Judge John W. Lungstrum of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action involving claims brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against a financial services company (the “Company”), three of its senior officers and several of its founder directors.  Yellowdog Partners, LP and Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois v. CURO Group Holdings Corp. et al., 18-cv-02662 (D. Kan. Dec. 3, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company and the three officer defendants made false and materially misleading statements concerning the Company’s business transition away from its most profitable product and its effect on the Company’s financial condition.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded falsity and scienter.
 

On November 6, 2016, Judge Michael A. Anello of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a securities class action against a theme park and entertainment company (“defendant” or the “Company”), certain members of its management, and its largest shareholder.  Baker v. SeaWorld Entm’t, Inc., No. 14CV2129-MMA (AGS), 2019 WL 6118448 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially misleading misstatements and omissions about the effect of Blackfish, a documentary film concerning killer whales in captivity, on attendance at the theme park and its earnings.  The Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis that there were genuine issues of material fact with respect to each element of a securities fraud claim. 

On November 22, 2019, Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) and its former officers (collectively “Defendants”), along with a healthcare company with which the REIT transacted (the “Company”) and its officers.  Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-1106, 2019 WL 6251435 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 22, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged Defendants made false or misleading statements about the Company’s future prospects, but knew or should have known that the Company was engaged in unlawful billing practices because of due diligence in connection with the transaction with the Company and a subsequent government investigation.  The Court held that plaintiffs’ allegations of scienter were based on impermissible hindsight pleading and dismissed the complaint.
 

On November 15, 2019, Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion seeking to revive claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the underwriter of a Regulation A+ offering.  In Re Longfin Corp. Sec. Class Action Litig., No. 18 CV 2933(DLC), 2019 WL 6045308 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2019).  As noted in our prior post, on July 29, 2019, the Court granted the underwriter’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed the claims against it with prejudice for failure to adequately allege scienter.  In response to that ruling, plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the prior order under Rule 60(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and sought to file a new amended complaint, based on the contention that plaintiffs had identified new evidence.  Judge Cote held, however, that the proposed new allegations still failed to adequately allege scienter.

 

On November 19, 2019, Judge William M. Campbell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss a putative class action under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a healthcare company, certain of its officers and directors, and a private equity firm that previously owned the company.  Plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to disclose that allegedly improper business practices were responsible for its revenue growth.  In re Envision Healthcare Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 3:17-CV-01112, 2019 WL 6168254 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 19, 2019).  The Court held that certain of the claims against the company and the individual defendants were adequately pleaded and others were not, but dismissed all claims against the private equity firm for failure to adequately allege scienter.
 

On November 13, 2019, Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a putative securities class action involving claims brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against a biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and two of its senior officers.  LSI Design and Integration Corp. v. Tesaro Inc. et al., 18-cv-12352 (D. Ma. Nov. 13, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that the Company and its CEO and CFO made materially misleading statements in violation of the Exchange Act concerning the Company’s financial condition and drug sales.  The Court dismissed the amended complaint finding that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead falsity or scienter.
 

On October 29, 2019, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action brought against a pharmaceutical wholesaler and two of its former executives.  Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corp., et al., 18-cv-06525-CRB (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2019).  Plaintiffs asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that defendants knew about and participated in a price-fixing conspiracy that allowed the company to profit from the inflated prices of generic drugs during the alleged class period and caused the company to suffer decreased earnings once reports revealed government investigations into alleged price-fixing and prices dropped.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs adequately alleged material misstatements, scienter, and loss causation at the pleading stage.
 

On October 16, 2019, Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division dismissed a putative securities class action against an in-flight internet connectivity services provider (the “Company”) and some of its current and former executives.  Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-04473 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2019).  Plaintiffs, who brought claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleged that defendants misrepresented the Company’s financial health and the performance and reliability of its in-flight internet services by failing to disclose the extent of a de-icing fluid issue that was affecting its ability to provide those services, and that the eventual disclosure of the issue caused the Company’s stock price to decline.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to plead a material misrepresentation or omission and also failed to adequately allege a strong inference of scienter, and therefore dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice.
 

On October 4, 2019, Judge Robert Lasnik of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a technology company and certain of its executives.  In re Impinj, Inc., Sec. Litig., No. C18-5704 RSL, 2019 WL 4917101 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2019).  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to alleged falsity as to certain alleged misrepresentations and dismissed claims against one of the company’s executives for failure to adequately allege scienter, but otherwise upheld plaintiffs’ claims.

 

On October 9, 2019, Judge C. Darnell Jones, II of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a manufacturer of equipment and tools used to assemble semiconductors and its CEO and CFO.  Kumar v. Kulicke & Soffa Indus., Inc., No. CV 19-0362, 2019 WL 5081896 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2019).  Based on the company’s disclosure of control deficiencies, improper transactions by an unnamed “senior finance employee,” the resignation of the company’s CFO, and amended financial statements, plaintiffs alleged that the company’s SEC filings and SOX certifications contained material misrepresentations.  Id. at *2.  The Court held that plaintiffs had identified actionable misstatements as to the CFO but had not adequately alleged scienter and, therefore, dismissed the case, while allowing plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

 

On September 30, 2019, Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action asserting claims brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against a footwear retailer (the “Company”) and several of its executives.  City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Foot Locker Inc. et al., 18-cv-01492 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its executives made materially misleading statements and omissions in violation of the Exchange Act concerning its competitive position in the market, the strength of the Company’s relationship with its vendors, and its product allocation and inventory.  The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead falsity and scienter, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On September 30, 2019, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action brought against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its current and former executives.  Tung v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al., 18-cv-1611 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019).  Plaintiffs allege that the pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and defendant executives made materially misleading statements and omissions concerning the design of the Company’s clinical trial that tested the efficacy of a newly-developed anticancer drug in violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Court dismissed the claims finding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead scienter, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend to address the pleading deficiencies.

On September 18, 2019, Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a putative class action against a pharmaceutical company asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Section 14(e) of the Williams Act.  Walleye Trading LLC v. AbbVie, Inc., No. 18 C 05114, 2019 WL 4464392 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that the company’s statement announcing the preliminary results of a tender offer contained misrepresentations regarding the number of shares tendered and the price per share at which the tendered shares would be acquired, which later had to be corrected in a revised statement.  The Court held that plaintiff failed to allege that the alleged misrepresentation was false when made or to adequately allege a strong inference of scienter.

On September 18, 2019, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action against a digital payment services company and certain of its officers asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.  Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., 17-CV-06956-EMC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations in a series of press releases regarding a data breach.  The Court held that plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient to raise a strong inference of scienter. 

On September 9, 2019, Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada partially dismissed a putative securities class action brought against an airline company and certain of its current and former executives.  Brendon et al. v. Allegiant Travel Co. et al., 2:18-cv-01758 (D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged in their first amended complaint (“FAC”) that the airline and its parent company (collectively, the “Airline”) and certain of its executives made materially misleading statements and omissions concerning the safety and mechanical reliability of its aircrafts and the competency of its maintenance staff in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a).  The Court allowed claims related to certain alleged false statements by defendants to proceed, dismissed certain of the claims that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead falsity and scienter, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend to address certain of the pleading deficiencies.

On August 29, 2019, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed most of the securities fraud claims in a putative class action against a major industrial conglomerate (the “Company”), and certain of its current and former executives, brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  AP-Fonden v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2019 BL 325702 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed performance problems in the Company’s insurance and power divisions.  The Court found, among other things, that plaintiffs did not adequately plead claims based upon allegedly misrepresented liabilities in the Company’s long-term care (“LTC”) insurance portfolio.  The Court did not, however, dismiss plaintiffs’ claim that the Company failed to disclose that it used “factoring” arrangements to generate current revenue by selling future revenues to third parties.

On August 28, 2019, Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action against the digital services and development company Synacor, Inc. and certain of its officers asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Lefkowitz, et al. v. Synacor, Inc., et al., 18-CV-2979 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged misrepresentations regarding revenue projections relating to a contract with a major customer, the customer’s control over monetizing the contract and weaknesses in the company’s internal controls for financial reporting.  The Court held that the alleged misrepresentations in question were either not actionable or were inadequately pleaded with respect to scienter, and therefore dismissed the complaint in its entirety, but granted leave to replead. 

On August 29, 2019, Judge K. Michael Moore of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a putative class action against National Beverage Corporation and certain of its officers asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Luczak v. National Beverage Corporation, et al., 18-cv-61631-KMM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants’ public statements contained misrepresentations regarding the company’s main product (a brand of sparkling water), the use of purportedly unique proprietary methods to drive growth, and sexual harassment allegations with respect to the company’s CEO.  The Court held that the alleged misrepresentations were inadequately pleaded with respect to either falsity, scienter or loss causation, and therefore dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

​On August 19, 2019, Judge Richard Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a putative securities class action involving claims brought under Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against a sports apparel company (the “Company”) and one of its executives.  In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, No. 17-cv-00388 (D. Md. Aug. 19, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misrepresented its financial health by concealing that consumer demand had declined and the Company had resorted to discounting to prop up its sales.  In a prior decision, the Court had dismissed plaintiffs’ claims but permitted plaintiffs to replead the Exchange Act claims to attempt to plead scienter.  The Court held, however, that plaintiffs’ further amended complaint suffered from the same defects as their prior complaint, and therefore dismissed the action with prejudice.

On August 19, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal by a Northern District of Texas court of a putative securities class action asserting a Section 10(b) claim under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against a home furnishings retailer (the “Company”) and two of its senior officers.  Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan v. Pier 1 Imports Inc. et al., No. 18-10998 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to disclose that the Company’s inventory was too high and was subject to significant “markdown risk” because it had too much inventory that was too “seasonal” and “subject to changing consumer tastes.”  The Court affirmed the district court’s decision that plaintiff’s allegations did not adequately support the required strong inference of scienter.

On August 12, 2019, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed without leave to amend a putative securities class action against a pharmaceutical company, and certain of its officers, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of N.Y.C., Inc. Pension Fund v. Impax Laboratories Inc., No. 16 Civ. 6577 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2019).  As to alleged misrepresentations regarding alleged price fixing, the Court held that the announcement of a government investigation cannot, as a matter of law, amount to a “corrective disclosure” sufficient to allege loss causation.  As to other alleged misrepresentations regarding price erosion as to certain drugs, the Court held that plaintiff failed to plead a false statement, materiality, and/or scienter.    

On August 6, 2019, Judge Katherine S. Hayden of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.  In re Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Sec. Litig., No. 16- CV-9449, 2019 WL 3562134 (D.N.J. Aug. 6, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that a pharmaceutical company and several of its executives participated in a price-fixing conspiracy that caused the prices of six generic drugs sold by the company to increase dramatically during the alleged class period—as ultimately revealed through a U.S. Department of Justice investigation—and that defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding the alleged conspiracy.  The Court held that plaintiffs adequately pleaded their claims, including with respect to material misstatements, scienter and loss causation.

On August 6, 2019, Judge Edward R. Korman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action asserting claims against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its officers under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In re Aceto Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 18-CV-2425 (ERK-AYS) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants made misrepresentations in connection with disclosures concerning the company’s compliance with internal controls, earnings forecasts, and regarding the valuation of goodwill and intangible assets.  The Court held that the complaint failed to plead an actionable misstatement or scienter, but granted leave to replead.

On July 12, 2019, Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action brought against the building materials company Cemex and certain of its officers, asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Schiro v. Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V., No. 18-CV-2352 (VEC), 2019 WL 3066487 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented the company’s internal controls and compliance with anti-bribery laws and failed to disclose an alleged bribery scheme involving the company’s Colombian subsidiary.  The Court held the misrepresentations in question were either not actionable or were inadequately pleaded with respect to scienter, and therefore dismissed the complaint in its entirety, while granting leave for plaintiffs to amend.

On July 16, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas that dismissed a putative class action against the oil and gas pipeline operator Plains All American Pipeline, certain of its officers, directors and related parties, and the underwriters for the securities offerings at issue.  Police & Fire Ret. Sys. of the City of Detroit v. Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P., —Fed. App’x—, 2019 WL 3213543, slip. op. (5th Cir. 2019).  As discussed in our prior post, plaintiffs, investors who purchased equity and debt instruments issued by entities affiliated with Plains All American Pipeline in seven different public offerings, brought claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that statements regarding the company’s compliance program were false in light of events surrounding a May 2015 oil spill.  The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ second amended complaint with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs either did not allege an actionable misstatement or did not sufficiently plead scienter.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

On July 1, 2019, Judge Michael A. Shipp of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging insider trading in violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In re Valeant Pharma. Int’l Inc. Sec. Litig., 15-7685 (MAS) (LHG) (D.N.J. July 1, 2019).  The complaint asserts the Section 20A claims against a board member of a large pharmaceutical corporation (the “Company”) and an investment advisory firm and affiliates co-founded by that board member that traded in the Company’s stock.  The Court, which had already considered and denied a motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims in a prior ruling, concluded that the complaint adequately alleged Section 20A claims and denied the motion to dismiss.

On June 14, 2019, Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action against a cybersecurity company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives. SEB Inv. Mgmt. AB v. Symantec Corp., No. 18-02902 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2019). After the Company announced that its audit committee had commenced an internal investigation and had voluntarily contacted the SEC after a former employee raised unspecified concerns, plaintiff, an investor in the Company, alleged that defendants made misrepresentations in connection with the Company’s growth as a result of its acquisition of two security firms, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Court held that plaintiff failed to allege actionable material misrepresentations and/or scienter as to various categories of alleged misstatements, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
 

On June 3, 2019, Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action against the mining company Rio Tinto and certain of its executives.  Colbert v. Rio Tinto plc, 17 Civ. 8169 (AT) (DCF) (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2019).  Plaintiff—purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Rio Tinto’s American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”)—alleged that defendants made misrepresentations regarding Rio Tinto’s investment and mining operations in Mozambique, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The Court held that certain of plaintiff’s claims were time-barred and the remaining claims failed to adequately allege an actionable misrepresentation or scienter.

On May 15, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially revived a securities fraud suit brought by a doctor and his business partner against two former business associates under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).  Masel v. Villarreal, —F.3d—, 2019 WL 2120536 (5th Cir. May 15, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants induced them to enter into a joint business enterprise through material misrepresentations and omissions about the effectiveness of defendants’ medical billing service.  The Court held that the complaint adequately stated a claim against one of the individual defendants and her associated business entities, but that it was properly dismissed as to another individual defendant.

On April 30, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against a biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives, and claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the executives.  In re Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 17-CV-12288 (D. Mass. Apr. 30, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made misstatements regarding manufacturing issues with respect to an ocular pain drug developed by the Company.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege actionable misstatements or omissions and scienter, and granted the motion to dismiss.

On May 7, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit summarily affirmed the judgment by Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting defendants’ motion to dismiss in a putative securities class action.  In re Express Scripts Holdings Co. Securities Litigation No. 18-cv-1850 (2d Cir. May 7, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants—a pharmacy benefit manager (“the Company”) and certain of its officers—violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) by making materially false or misleading statements in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.  As discussed in our prior post, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs did not adequately plead that defendants made any misleading statements or that defendants acted with the requisite scienter.  On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the District Court incorrectly held that the Amended Complaint failed to adequately allege that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omission and acted with scienter.  The Second Circuit affirmed in a summary order.  Summary orders do not have binding precedential effect.

On April 19, 2019, Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against Zillow Group, Inc. and certain of its executives.  In re Zillow Group, Inc. Securities Litig., No. C17-1387-JCC, 2019 WL 1755293 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 19, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged misstatements by defendants regarding a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) investigation into, among other things, potential violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) that allegedly arose out of Zillow’s “co-marketing” program between real estate agents and mortgage lenders.  As discussed in our prior post, the Court had previously granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, but allowed plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint.  In considering the second amended complaint, the Court explained how plaintiffs had cured the defects the Court noted in its prior ruling regarding allegations of material misstatements and scienter.

On April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court heard argument in a closely-watched case asking whether mere negligence is sufficient to plead and prove a claim under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) in connection with a tender offer and – perhaps – whether a private right of action exists under Section 14(e) at all.  Emulex Corporation, et al. v. Varjabedian, No. 18-459 (Apr. 15, 2019).  The argument was particularly lively, with the Justices posing numerous questions about both a defendant’s required mental state, as well as whether an implied right of action ought to be recognized – although it remains unclear whether the Court will actually decide the latter question.

On March 25, 2019, Judge Christina A. Snyder of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss a class action filed against a Canadian silver company (the “Company”), current and former executives of the Company, and its auditor and tax consultant (the “Auditor”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  In Re Silver Wheaton Corp. Secs. Lit., No. 2:15-cv-05146; 2:15-cv-5173 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2019).  Plaintiffs allege defendants failed to disclose USD$207 million in Canadian tax liabilities and that the Auditor wrongfully issued clean audit opinions.  The Court held that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded claims against all defendants.  Of particular note, while the Court acknowledged several hurdles that generally result in the dismissal of claims against auditors, it held that those hurdles had been surmounted by plaintiffs given the unique circumstances of the case.

On March 29, 2019, Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against the restaurant chain Chipotle and certain of its executives.  Nardy v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-1760 (WYD) (STV), slip op. (D. Colo. Mar. 29, 2019), ECF No. 64.  Plaintiffs alleged that, in the wake of foodborne illness outbreaks at Chipotle restaurants, defendants made misrepresentations and omissions regarding the company’s compliance with food safety regulations and its implementation and training of employees on food safety practices.  The Court held that plaintiffs’ various allegations failed to assert actionable misrepresentations, or in certain cases did not adequately allege scienter, or loss causation.

On March 28, 2019, Judge William H. Pauley 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 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  Gagnon v. Alkermes PLC, —F. Supp. 3d—, 2019 WL 1388700 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants made misleading statements in investor and analyst calls and public filings concerning the efficacy of the company’s opioid-dependence drug Vivitrol and the reasons for increased revenue from Vivitrol, which plaintiff alleged actually resulted from deceptive marketing and lobbying tactics.  Id. at *2.  The Court held that all but one of the alleged misstatements were not actionable, and as to the one actionable misstatement, plaintiff had failed to adequately allege scienter.  Because the Court had previously given plaintiff an opportunity to replead, the action was dismissed with prejudice.

On March 28, 2019, Judge Ronnie Abrams 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 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  In re Global Brokerage, Inc., 17-cv-00916 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2019).  Plaintiffs principally alleged that defendants, a foreign exchange trading and services company and certain of its executives, made misleading statements or omissions regarding (a) the company’s reliance on an agency-trading model and (b) the nature of payments the company received from another company, “Effex,” that had been spun-off from the defendant company.  The Court had dismissed plaintiffs’ prior amended complaint without prejudice, holding, inter alia, that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged scienter.  The Court held, however, that plaintiffs’ second amended complaint adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations and scienter as to the majority of claims and all but one individual defendant.

On March 29, 2019, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York partially granted a motion to dismiss claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in a putative class action against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  In re Mylan N.V. Securities Litigation, No. 16-cv-7926 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made misleading statements regarding, among other things, an alleged rebate scheme involving the company’s EpiPen, and the alleged inflation of prices for various generic drugs.  After the Court dismissed in part plaintiffs’ first amended complaint as noted in our prior post, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that added an executive as a defendant, new allegations to support scienter for previously dismissed claims, a new alleged corrective disclosure in support of loss causation arguments, and additional claims asserting fraud based on the failure to disclose illegal anticompetitive misconduct.  The Court held certain of plaintiffs’ new allegations based on anticompetitive behavior were inadequately pleaded but permitted one claim to go forward, and also held that certain new allegations of scienter were sufficient.

On March 15, 2019, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against a camera technology company (“Company”), along with its officers and executives.  Park v. GoPro, Inc., et. al., 18-cv-00193-EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2019).  Plaintiffs claimed defendants made false statements during an earnings call following the announcement of the Company’s results for the third quarter of the 2017 fiscal year (“Q3 2017”), and engaged in suspicious stock transactions.  The Court dismissed the action on the ground that plaintiffs did not adequately plead falsity or scienter.

On March 13, 2019, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted a motion to dismiss claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in a putative class action against an oil and gas exploration and production company and certain of its officers.  Edgar v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, et al., No. 17-cv-01372 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2019).  After the Court dismissed the prior amended complaint as noted in our prior post, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint attempting to add allegations supporting an inference of scienter.  The Court held, however, that the amended complaint still failed to adequately allege scienter, and therefore dismissed the action with prejudice.

On March 8, 2019, Judge William H. Pauley of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss an action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against a provider of logistics to automobile manufacturers and certain of the company’s officers.  River Birch Capital, LLC, v. Jack Cooper Holdings Corp., No. 17-CV-9193, 2019 WL 1099943 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2019).  The Court held that plaintiff failed to allege any actionable misstatements or omissions and, further, that plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter.  Because the Court had previously given plaintiff an opportunity to replead, the action was dismissed with prejudice.

On February 22, 2019, Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a putative class action against an Israeli-based technology company (“Company”) and its senior officers, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. Padgett v. RIT Techs. Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-4579, 2019 WL 913154 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2019). Plaintiffs alleged defendants failed to disclose the extent of the Company’s reliance on an agreement with a non-exclusive distributor to provide its products and services in the Commonwealth of Independent States region (“CIS”). The Court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege how defendants’ public statements and failure to use specific adjectives to characterize the distributor were misleading to investors.

On January 31, 2019, Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted with leave to amend defendants’ motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a digital printing company (the “Company”) and two of its officers.  In Re:  Electronics For Imaging, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 17-5592 (D. N.J. Jan. 31, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by intentionally misrepresenting the adequacy of the Company’s internal controls.  The Court disagreed, finding that because the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to show that the deficiencies were “‘so obvious’ that defendants must have known about them . . . , or allegations that defendants ignored ‘red flags,’” it failed to plead scienter.

On January 4, 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari concerning whether Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 includes an implied private right of action for negligent misrepresentation or omission made in connection with a tender offer.  Emulex Corporation, et al. v. Varjabedian, No. 18-459 (Jan. 4, 2019). 

On December 6, 2018, Chief Judge Patti Saris of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the early-stage biopharmaceutical company Genocea Biosciences, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors. Emerson v. Genocea Biosciences, Inc., No. 17-12137-PBS (D. Mass. Dec. 6, 2018). Plaintiffs alleged that Genocea omitted to disclose to investors certain six-month post-dosing clinical trial test results because it knew the results to be negative, thereby causing class members to purchase Genocea stock at an inflated price. The Court dismissed the action, holding that the alleged omissions were not material and that other disclosures weighed against finding the required strong inference of scienter.

On November 26, 2018, Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against Signet Jewelers Limited (the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors.  In re Signet Jewelers Limited Sec. Litig., No. 16-cv-6728 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018).  Plaintiffs—purchasers of the Company’s shares between August 2013 and March 2018—claimed that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements relating to (1) the health and management of the Company’s credit portfolio and (2) the Company’s corporate culture of “pervasive” sexual harassment, leading to a sharp drop in the Company’s share price when the truth allegedly was revealed.  The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged false and misleading statements, scienter and loss causation, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On November 27, 2018, Judge Edward M. Chen 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 class action against Yelp, Inc. (the “Company”) and several of its senior officers.  Azar v. Yelp, Inc., No. 18-cv-00400 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2018).  Plaintiffs—purchasers of Company stock between February 10, 2017 and May 9, 2017—alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s expected revenues in relation to its advertising program with local businesses, leading to a drop in the Company’s stock price when the Company subsequently made downward adjustments to its projections in May 2017.  The Court held that while certain of the Company’s statements were protected by safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), other alleged statements were actionable misrepresentations.  The Court also held that plaintiffs adequately pleaded scienter and loss causation.  The Court thus granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On October 26, 2018, Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed a putative class action brought against a biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Hirtenstein v. Cempra, Inc., No. 16-cv-1303 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 2018). Plaintiffs sought to recover for alleged stock losses occurring after the Company allegedly failed to disclose risks associated with an experimental antibiotic used to treat pneumonia. The Court dismissed the action, finding that the challenged statements about the drug’s safety constituted opinions and plaintiffs’ allegations of motive were insufficient to establish a strong inference of scienter.

On October 10, 2018, Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a memorandum opinion and order setting forth the reasoning for his September 30, 2018, dismissal of a putative securities class action against SuperCom Inc. (the “Company”), an Israeli manufacturer of electronic identification and location tracking products, and certain of its officers and directors.  In re SuperCom Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-9650 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2018).  Plaintiffs—purchasers of the Company’s common stock during a ten-month putative class period—alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) as a result of defendants allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s revenue and earnings projections for 2015, which plaintiffs allege led to a 40% decline in the Company’s stock price when the Company subsequently announced lower-than-expected financial results.  The Court disagreed, finding that the alleged misstatements are protected by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ( “PSLRA”) safe harbor because plaintiffs either failed to adequately allege material misstatements or failed to adequately allege the requisite scienter necessary to support their claims.

On October 9, 2018, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative class action against a solar energy company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re SunPower Corp. Secs. Litig., No. 16-cv-04710-RS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2018). Plaintiffs alleged the Company misrepresented demand for its projects by failing to report that an extension of an investment tax credit (“ITC”) and other tax rules would decrease demand in the near-term. Observing that the gravamen of the complaint is that the Company made bad predictions, the Court dismissed the action because plaintiffs failed to identify a material misrepresentation or omission and failed to plead facts sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter, as required by the Private Security Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”).

On October 4, 2018, Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss claims asserted under Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by certain investment funds against Ocwen Financial Corporation.  Owl Creek I, L.P. v. Ocwen Financial Corp., No. 18-80506-CIV (Oct. 4, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that Ocwen and certain of its executives induced plaintiffs to invest by making inaccurate statements regarding Ocwen’s financial statements, its purported regulatory compliance, and the effectiveness of its internal controls and procedures.  The Court dismissed claims based on statements in one conference call due to lack of scienter, but otherwise denied defendants’ motion.

On September 30, 2018, Judge Andrea R. Wood of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a putative shareholder class action against VASCO Data Security International, Inc. and certain of its officers. Plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Rossbach v. VASCO Data Sec., Int’l, 2018 WL 4699796, (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2018). Plaintiff alleged that VASCO made a number of misstatements suggesting that revenue sources other than the company’s largest client were stronger than they really were. When the company disclosed that the revenue associated with those other products and services remained essentially flat, the stock price allegedly fell. The Court held that plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to adequately allege a false statement or scienter. Plaintiff was, however, granted leave to file a second amended complaint.

On October 2, 2018, Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed a putative class action against Zillow Group, Inc. and certain of its executives asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  In re Zillow Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C17-1387-JCC (W.D. Wash. Oct. 2, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged misstatements by defendants regarding a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) investigation into, among other things, potential violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) arising out of Zillow’s “co-marketing” program between real estate agents and mortgage lenders.  The Court dismissed the action for failure to adequately allege material misstatements or scienter, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On September 27, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a putative securities class action against pharmaceutical company Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) and its CEO.  Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 17-1701 (6th Cir. Sept. 27, 2018).  Plaintiffs, investors in the Company, alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by falsely stating that, based on feedback received by the Company at a meeting with the Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), the FDA would not require additional testing of the Company’s pre-approval anti-cholesterol drug ETC-1002.  The Company’s stock price allegedly plummeted when, over a month later, the Company issued a press release indicating that, according to the FDA’s own final meeting minutes which had just been provided to the Company, additional testing would be required prior to any approval of the drug.  The United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan had dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a strong inference of scienter because they failed to identify facts demonstrating that defendants actually understood the FDA’s communications in a way that was different than what the Company publicly disclosed, and that defendants had not been reckless.  Plaintiffs appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reversed.

On September 25, 2018, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative securities class action against Netflix, Inc. (the “Company”), its CEO and CFO.  Ziolkowski v. Netflix, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-01070 (N.D. Cal Sept. 25, 2018).  Plaintiffs—purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the proposed class period—claimed that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions in order to minimize the effects of a recently enacted pricing increase on subscription figures.  In dismissing the complaint without prejudice, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any untrue statement of material fact and also failed to adequately allege scienter.

On September 20, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of a putative securities fraud class action brought against Hertz Global Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) and several of its executives for failure to plead a strong inference of scienter.  In Re Hertz Global Holdings Inc., No. 17-2200 (3d Cir. Sep’t 20, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s financial results, internal controls, and future earnings projections.  The panel found that plaintiffs’ allegations more plausibly suggested defendants were “just bad leaders,” confirming that claims of mismanagement cannot be converted into a claim of securities fraud, and that the complaint failed to allege factual allegations sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter.

On September 7, 2018, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action against Impax Laboratories and certain of its officers under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder alleging that the company made material misstatements regarding (1) the cause of substantial price increases for two generic drugs and (2) trends associated with other drugs.  Fleming v. Impax Labs. Inc., No. 16 Civ. 6577 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018).  The Court held that (a) the allegations regarding drug price increases adequately pleaded a material misstatement, but insufficiently alleged scienter or loss causation, and (b) the allegations regarding trends failed to plead either a material misstatement or scienter.  Plaintiff was, however, granted leave to replead.

On September 11, 2018, Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed with prejudice a third amended putative class action complaint against Global Power Equipment Group, Inc. and certain of its former officers asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegations that defendants filed false and misleading financial statements.  Budde v. Global Power Equip. Grp., Inc., No. 3:15-CV-1679-M, 2018 WL 4335670 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 2018).  Global Power issued restated financials and acknowledged that it had recognized certain revenues and expenses in the wrong period for its Electrical Solutions (“ES”) Segment, had deficiencies in internal controls over financial reporting, and incorrectly accounted for goodwill upon the sale of a subsidiary.  Nevertheless, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter with respect to any individual defendant and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

On September 7, 2018, Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a second amended putative class action complaint on behalf of Volkswagen bondholders asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Volkswagen and certain of its former executives alleging that defendants failed to disclose Volkswagen’s use of “defeat device” software to mask emissions in the company’s diesel engines.  In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018).  In its previous July 19, 2017 and March 2, 2018 orders, as discussed in our prior posts, the Court had first dismissed certain claims for failure to adequately plead scienter and then, reconsidering its prior holding that plaintiff was entitled to a presumption of reliance under Affiliated Ute, dismissed plaintiff’s first amended complaint in its entirety for failure to plead reliance.  In considering the second amended complaint, the Court held that scienter and individual, direct reliance were adequately alleged, but raised questions about plaintiff’s ability to prove class-wide reliance.

On August 10, 2018, Judge Kimba M. Wood of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action against foreign exchange trading company FXCM Inc. (“FXCM” or the “Company”) and its CEO.  Ret. Bd. of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago v. FXCM, No. 15-cv-03599 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2018).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 by making material misstatements and omissions concerning certain risks associated with the Company’s business model.  The Court held that the alleged misrepresentations were inactionable “puffery,” too vague to be actionable, or were not misleading because the alleged risks were adequately disclosed when the Company’s disclosures were viewed as a whole.  The Court also held that plaintiff had failed to allege a strong inference of scienter.

On August 1, 2018, Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed without prejudice a putative securities class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act against the telecommunications company BT Group PLC and certain of its officers.  Plaintiffs, who purchased BT Group American Depository Receipts (“ADRs”), based their claims on allegations that defendants made a series of misstatements between 2013 and 2017 relating to control problems at a BT Group subsidiary in Italy.  Christian v. BT Group plc, No. 17-cv-497 (KM-JBC) (D.N.J. Aug. 1, 2018).  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter and therefore dismissed the action.

On July 11, 2018, Judge John E. Jones III of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed certain claims in a putative securities fraud class action against Rite Aid Corporation and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.  Plaintiff brought claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that Rite Aid, Walgreens, and certain executives at each company made various misstatements over the course of the failed merger between the two companies, which was announced in October 2015 and ultimately terminated in June 2017.  Hering v. Rite Aid Corp., —F. Supp. 3d—, 2018 WL 3373033 (M.D. Pa. July 11, 2018).  The Court held that the majority of the alleged misstatements were optimistic forward-looking statements that were immaterial and/or protected by the safe harbor provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, but that certain statements by the Walgreens defendants expressing confidence that the transaction would close based on purported inside information, made in response to negative reports in the press, were sufficiently pleaded with respect to falsity and scienter to state a claim for fraud.

On July 12, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action brought against Kohl’s Corporation and certain of its executives asserting claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Pension Tr. Fund for Operating Eng’rs v. Kohl's Corp., —F.3d—, 2018 WL 3385278 (7th Cir. July 12, 2018). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements prior to an announcement that Kohl’s would be correcting several years of financial statements due to lease accounting errors. The Court, affirming the district court’s dismissal with prejudice, held that plaintiffs’ complaint failed to adequately allege scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and that plaintiffs were not entitled to an opportunity to replead because they had not provided any basis to infer they could plead a viable claim.

On June 19, 2018, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed with leave to amend a putative securities class action against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko” or the “Company”) and certain of its officers. Edgar v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., et al., No. 17-1372 (S.D. Tex., June 19, 2018). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by allegedly making material misstatements about the safety of its gas wells and compliance with regulatory requirements. The Court found all but one of the alleged misstatements was not actionable because they amounted to opinions and “corporate cheerleading.” Although the Court found one alleged misstatement actionable, it held that the complaint failed to establish scienter, and granted leave to amend the complaint.

On June 18, 2018, Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against Acacia Communications, Inc. (the “Company”), certain of its officers, certain sellers of the Company’s common stock in connection with its secondary offering, and the underwriters for the Company’s secondary offering.

On June 11, 2018, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative securities fraud class action against veterinary pharmaceutical company Aratana Therapeutics Inc.

Read more.

On June 4, 2018, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a class action alleging that Dynavax Technologies Corporation (“Dynavax” or the “Company”) and its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by alleging omitting information about its hepatitis B vaccine.  In re Dynavax Securities Litigation, No. 4:16-cv-06690-YGR (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2018).  The Court’s decision is another in a long line of decisions declining to find a securities violation when a pharmaceutical company is alleged to have concealed adverse developments in clinical trials.

Read more.

On May 22, 2018, Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative securities fraud class action against pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts Holding Company (“Express Scripts” or “Company”) and several of its current and former officers.  In re Express Scripts Holding Co. Secs. Litig., No. 1:16-cv-03338 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2018).  Plaintiff—a shareholder of Express Scripts—alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making affirmative misstatements concerning negotiations to renew the contract with its largest customer, Anthem, Inc. (“Anthem”), allegedly causing Plaintiff to suffer losses when the truth was revealed and Company’s stock price declined.  The Court disagreed, finding that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the Company did not believe its statements regarding its relationship with Anthem, and as a result dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. 

Read more

​On May 11, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Williams Companies, Inc. (“Williams” or the “Company”), its CEO, CFO, and certain affiliates.  Emps.’ Ret. Sys. of R.I. v. Williams Cos., et al., No. 17-5034 (10th Cir. May 11, 2018).  The claims alleged in the complaint related to an unconsummated merger between Williams, an energy company, and its affiliate, Williams Partners L.P. (“WPZ”), and the Company’s subsequent agreement to merge with a competing energy company, Energy Transfer Equity L.P. (“ETE”).  Plaintiff alleged that the Company misled investors by describing its proposed merger with WPZ, of which Williams held 60% of the units, as “no risk,” and by failing to disclose its merger discussions with ETE.  The Court rejected both arguments and affirmed the district court’s dismissal, reasoning that plaintiff had taken the alleged misstatement out of context, and that it otherwise failed to allege a basis for requiring the disclosure of the merger discussions with ETE. 

Read more

On April 20, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that scienter is not required for securities claims brought under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Varjabedian v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 16-55088 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2018).  In so holding, the Ninth Circuit rejected the decisions of five other circuit courts and ruled Section 14(e) claims require only a showing of negligence.

Read more

On April 13, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a summary order, affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against Deutsche Bank and certain of its officers asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In re Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft Sec. Litig., No. 17-2560, 2018 WL 1773502 (2d Cir. 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented the effectiveness of the bank’s anti-money laundering controls, and that weaknesses in those controls were subsequently revealed in the public fallout surrounding the bank’s use of so-called “mirror trades” to move funds out of Russia.  Applying the “more stringent rule for inferences involving scienter” under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to adequately plead scienter.

Read more

On March 30, 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a class action against Halyard Health, Inc. (“Halyard”) and its executives, along with Kimberly-Clark Corporation (“Kimberly-Clark”) and its executives, that alleged securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  Jackson v. Halyard Health Inc., et al., 1:16-cv-05093 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2018).  Halyard sells health and healthcare supplies and solutions.  Plaintiff alleged that he acquired Halyard securities at inflated prices and suffered losses when Halyard disclosed that one of its products, the MicroCool Breathable High Performance Surgical Gown (“MicroCool”), intended to protect healthcare providers from contact with highly infectious diseases, was ineffective during the 2014 Ebola virus outbreak.  The Court dismissed the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead facts sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
 

On March 28, 2018, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action against Mylan N.V. and several of its officers asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 1 of the Israeli Securities Law of 1968.  In re Mylan N.V. Securities Litigation, 16 Civ. 7926 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that Mylan (which is dual listed on NASDAQ and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange) misclassified its drug EpiPen for purposes of Medicaid rebates; entered into anticompetitive agreements to inflate drug prices; and made materially misleading statements to investors about its conduct.  While the Court dismissed the Israeli securities law claims “in the interests of international comity,” the Court found that most of the Exchange Act claims were adequately pleaded.

Read more

On March 27, 2018, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a putative class action alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Biogen Inc. and certain executives.  Metzler Asset Management GmbH et al. v. Kingsley et al., 16 Civ. 12101 (D. Mass. Mar. 27, 2018).  Plaintiffs, investors in Biogen stock, had alleged that Biogen made false and misleading statements regarding the safety and sales of Tecfidera, a leading multiple sclerosis drug.  Tecfidera’s sales had declined following the death of a patient in a clinical study, causing Biogen to cut its guidance for revenue growth in half, and Biogen’s stock price subsequently declined by more than 20%.  The Court held that, while several alleged misrepresentations and omissions were plausibly misleading or false, Plaintiffs had “fail[ed] to clear the relatively high hurdle” under the PSLRA to adequately allege a “strong inference” of scienter.

Read more

On March 22, 2018, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (“Chipotle”), its two former co-CEOs, and its CFO.  Ong v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. et al., No. 1:16-cv-141-KPF (S.D.N.Y. March 22, 2018).  Plaintiffs—shareholders of Chipotle who allegedly purchased the company’s shares between February 5, 2015 and February 2, 2016—alleged that the company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by failing to disclose in securities filing and press releases certain attendant risks in the fast-food chain’s produce processing and food-safety procedures, allegedly causing plaintiffs to suffer losses when Chipotle’s stock dropped after a series of food-borne illness outbreaks occurred in 2014 and 2015.  The Court disagreed, finding that while it was “as concerned as the parties about food-borne illness outbreaks,” plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded securities fraud, and dismissed plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (“SAC”) with prejudice.

Read more

On February 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in a per curiam unpublished decision the dismissal of a putative securities class action against UBS AG and certain affiliated entities.  Giancarlo, et al. v. UBS Financial Services Inc., et al., No. 16-20663 (5th Cir. Feb. 26, 2018).  Plaintiffs—former clients of a defendant UBS affiliate who invested in former energy giant Enron using the UBS affiliate as their broker—alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose information purportedly revealing problems with Enron’s accounting, leading to alleged losses when Enron’s precarious financial position was uncovered in November 2001.  The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, finding that plaintiffs failed to plead facts demonstrating that defendants’ separate corporate status should be disregarded, and thus had failed to adequately plead their “single, fully integrated entity” theory of liability.  The District Court further found that plaintiffs had failed to identify specific brokers or allege facts demonstrating that each broker had an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.  The Fifth Circuit agreed, holding that plaintiffs had failed to meet the heightened specificity requirements for pleading securities fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), noting that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that defendants had knowledge of Enron’s practices, nor a duty to disclose such information to plaintiffs.   

Read more

On February 9, 2018, Judge Charles E. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that “newly discovered evidence” regarding the basis for an auditor’s resignation and the scope of improper expense reimbursements did not justify reconsidering the Court’s prior dismissal of claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for failure to sufficiently allege scienter and loss causation.  Rok v. Identiv, Inc., 2018 WL 807147 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2018).

Read more

On January 20, 2018, Judge John Koeltl of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder filed against E*TRADE Securities LLC (“E*TRADE”), E*TRADE Financial Corporation (“E*TRADE Financial”), and one current and one former officer of E*TRADE Financial.  Schwab v. E*TRADE Fin. Corp., --F. Supp. 3d --, 2018 WL 502787 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).  Plaintiff alleged that E*TRADE falsely represented that it would execute clients’ orders consistent with its duty of “best execution”—which requires it to use “reasonable diligence” to obtain the most favorable price for a customer under “prevailing market conditions”—because E*TRADE allegedly executed orders in consideration of only two factors—its order-handling agreements with venues and the maximization of payments for order flow.  In prior decisions, the Court dismissed common law claims as precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”), and dismissed without prejudice the second amended complaint for failure to adequately allege reliance or scienter.  Addressing plaintiff’s third amended complaint, the Court again determined that plaintiff had failed to adequately plead reliance or scienter, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Read more

On December 18, 2017, Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) filed against CoreCivic—a publicly traded real estate investment trust that operates private prisons—and certain CoreCivic executives.  Grae v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. 3:16-CV-2267, 2017 WL 6442145 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 18, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that CoreCivic and the individual defendants made and authorized numerous false and misleading statements concerning the quality of CoreCivic’s operations and how those operations complied with standards set by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) despite being on notice that their operations failed to so comply in numerous instances, and that defendants’ statements were later contradicted by a United States Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) audit report and a memorandum by then–Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates critical of the private prison industry, causing CoreCivic’s stock price to plummet more than 50% in eight days.  In denying defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court held that the totality of plaintiffs’ allegations sufficiently supported their “central theory of liability.”

Read more

On November 21, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a dismissal by Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California of a putative class action against Yelp, Inc. (“Yelp”) and three of its senior executives.  Curry, et al. v. Yelp, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-15104 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017).  Plaintiffs brought claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), alleging that Yelp made material misstatements regarding the authenticity and independence of the reviews posted by users on its website, and that those misstatements, when brought to light in media reports, caused Yelp’s stock value to drop.  The district court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ amended complaint, finding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege material false statements, loss causation, and scienter.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege loss causation and scienter and holding that the amended complaint fell short of the “demanding standards set for claims of federal securities law violations.”

Read more

On November 15, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities fraud class action against PowerSecure International, Inc. (the “Company” or “PowerSecure”), and Sidney Hinton, its president and CEO.  Maguire Fin. LP v. PowerSecure Int’l Inc., No. 16-2163 (4th Cir. Nov. 15, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants defrauded investors by knowingly making misrepresentations about the renewal of a major contract in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The district court dismissed the complaint after finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed, stating that “[a] plaintiff may not stack inference upon inference” to satisfy the PSLRA’s heightened pleading requirements for scienter. 

Read more

On October 20, 2017, Judge Michael M. Anello of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied in part and granted in part a motion to dismiss brought by Qualcomm, Inc. (the “Company”), its CEO, and four directors, in response to a shareholder lawsuit.  3226701 Canada, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-2678-MMA (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2017).  Plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), as well as violations of SEC Rule 10b-5, in connection with statements made by the Company and its directors regarding one of its microprocessors used in smartphones and other mobile devices.  The Court held that plaintiff had adequately pleaded falsity and scienter in connection with some of the alleged statements, but that other statements were not actionable.  The Court allowed the claims against the CEO and the Company to proceed, but dismissed the claims against the four directors.

Read more

On October 18, 2017, Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed with leave to amend a consolidated amended complaint asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against Seattle Genetics, Inc. (the “Company”) and certain of its current and former executives (the “Individual Defendants”).  Patel v. Seattle Genetics Inc., No. C17-41RSM (W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2017).  Based largely on information obtained from a confidential witness, the complaint alleged that defendants misled investors by claiming that the Company’s cancer treatment drug did not cause a toxic side effect on a patient’s liver, while failing to disclose that certain patients in a clinical trial had already experienced liver toxicity (hepatotoxicity).  Although the Court found that plaintiff adequately alleged a material omission, it dismissed the complaint for failure to plead scienter because, in the Court’s opinion, the Individual Defendants’ general knowledge of the Company’s day-to-day business was insufficient to impute to them knowledge about potential problems with hepatotoxicity in a clinical trial. 

Read more

​On Monday, October 16, 2017, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a shareholder class action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Twitter Inc. (“Twitter”) and certain of its executives.  Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., No. 16-CV-05314-JST, 2017 WL 4642001 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that Twitter and its executives made false and/or misleading statements regarding Twitter’s user metrics that painted a misleading picture of Twitter’s financial health and growth.  The Court permitted many of plaintiffs’ claims to proceed, even while dismissing certain allegations as non-actionable “puffery,” and discounting allegations in the complaint attributed to confidential witnesses.

Read more

On October 4, 2017, United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed without prejudice a putative class action against Facebook, Inc., and three of its senior executives.  Anshen v. Facebook, No. 2:17-cv-00679-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by fraudulently inflating Facebook’s “average duration of video view” advertisement efficacy metric, leading to a decrease in expected revenue and a drop in the company’s share price when the inaccuracy of the metric was later disclosed.  The company maintained that it inadvertently had overstated this key metric by 60—80% for two years because only advertisements that were viewed for more than three seconds were included in the calculation.  The Court rejected plaintiffs’ claims, finding that plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead scienter or causation.

Read more

On September 19, 2017, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York allowed a putative securities fraud class action to proceed against VEON Ltd. (“VEON”), a telecommunications company formerly known as VimpelCom, and several of its current and former executives, denying in large part the company’s motion to dismiss.  In re VEON Ltd. Sec. Litig., 15-cv-08672 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2017).  Plaintiffs brought claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) asserting that VEON’s failure to disclose in its SEC filings its admitted bribery scheme in Uzbekistan made the company’s statements about its growth materially misleading.  While VEON argued that plaintiffs’ claims were an impermissible attempt to enforce the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), for which there is no private right of action, the Court disagreed, holding that plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficiently distinct and sufficient to plead violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Read more

On September 6, 2017, Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the Central District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion by defendants to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against Goldcorp, Inc., a gold mining company, its former CEO Charles A. Jeannes, and other current and former officers of Goldcorp.  Cowan v. Goldcorp, No. 16-CV-6391 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2017).  The complaint asserted that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misleading investors about pollution levels at one of Goldcorp’s major mines in Mexico.  In denying in part and granting in part the motion to dismiss, the Court ruled that—with the exception of a statement by Goldcorp’s former CEO—the complaint failed to adequately allege a materially false or misleading statement, noting that the complaint relied extensively on allegations raised in a Reuters article and lacked any corroboration.
 

On September 6, 2017, Judge Andrew J. Guilford of the Central District of California denied motions to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against Banc of California (“Banc”) and its former CEO, Steven Sugarman.  In re Banc of Cal. Sec. Litig., No. 17-CV-118 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2017).  Based largely on a short seller report published online, the complaint alleged among other things that defendants omitted information regarding Sugarman’s alleged financial and business ties to Jason Galanis, an individual who pled guilty to criminal securities fraud in connection with other companies.  In denying the motions to dismiss, the Court shed light on how courts might evaluate claims based on blog posts, an increasingly common basis for claims in securities cases.

On September 5, 2017, Judge Richard M. Berman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action against Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (“Ambac”), asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Wilbush v. Ambac Fin. Grp., Inc., No. 16 Civ. 5076 (RMB), slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2017), ECF No. 41.  Plaintiff alleged that Ambac, an insurer, concealed its true credit risk and loss exposure to more than $10 billion in Puerto Rican bonds it insured.  The Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege actionable misstatements, and further that plaintiff’s allegations of scienter were insufficient, given that there was no indication that defendants had access to non-public information contradicting their public statements. 

Read more

On August 25, 2017, Judge Lee Yeakel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against Whole Foods Market, Inc. and certain of its officers.  Markman v. Whole Foods Market Inc. et al, No. 1:15-cv-681-LY (W.D. Tex. Aug 25, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ knowingly or recklessly engaged in a scheme to overcharge customers by placing inaccurate food-weight labels on prepackaged foods, thereby rendering Whole Foods’ financial statements false and misleading, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).  Lead plaintiffs—the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii—filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) after the Court dismissed their original complaint for failure to state a claim.  The Court held that the SAC failed to adequately plead a material misrepresentation or omission, scienter, and loss causation, and denied plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the complaint again.

Read more

On August 23, 2017, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing a putative class action against Globus Medical, Inc. (“Globus” or the “Company”), a medical device company that designs, develops and sells musculoskeletal implants, and several individual officers.  Williams v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 16-3607 (3d Cir. Aug. 23, 2017).  The lawsuit alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 based on allegations that the Company failed to disclose the termination of a distribution partnership or the impact the termination would have on its revenue projections.  The decision sheds light on how district courts in the Third Circuit should evaluate claims that are based on an alleged omission that, according to plaintiffs, rendered a prior disclosure inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, and also addresses the requirements for stating a claim based on allegedly misleading revenue projections.

Read more

On August 22, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed an order from the District of Massachusetts, dismissing a putative securities class action that asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against drug maker Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. (“Sarepta”) and certain of its current and former officers.  Corban, et al. v. Sarepta Pharmaceutical Inc., et al., No. 16-1658 (1st Cir. Aug. 22, 2017).  The complaint alleged that Sarepta deceived investors about the significance of trial data for the company’s new muscular dystrophy drug, eteplirsen, and the likelihood that the company would obtain United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval for that drug.  The First Circuit held that plaintiffs failed to plead a “cogent inference of scienter” that Sarepta misled investors, and also held that while opinions implying false facts may suffice to allege a fraud claim, the opinions at issue were insufficient because they “came replete with caveats.”

Read more

On August 11, 2017, Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative securities class action brought against SolarCity Corp. (“SolarCity”) and four of its senior officers that alleged the defendants made materially misleading misrepresentations in SolarCity’s SEC filings, written communications with investors, and quarterly earnings calls with analysts.  In re SolarCity Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 5:16-cv-4686, 2017 WL 3453387 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2017).  Plaintiffs asserted a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against all defendants, and a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.  In dismissing the complaint and granting leave to amend, the Court held that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that any of the defendants had either made actionable false or misleading statements or acted with the requisite fraudulent intent.

Read more

On August 10, 2017, Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed a putative securities class action brought against Pier 1 Imports, Inc. (“Pier 1”) and its former CEO and CFO that alleged the defendants had misrepresented the company’s excess inventory and potential price markdown risk in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Town of Davie Police Pension Plan v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-3415-D, 2017 WL 3437215 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2017).  The Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to plead that defendants had either misrepresented Pier 1 inventory or intended to do so.

Read more

On August 4, 2017, United States District Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (“EPL”), certain of its directors and officers, and EPL’s controlling shareholders.  Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al., No. SACV-15-1343-DOC (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and/or 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5, by failing to disclose material facts and making materially false or misleading statements as part of a scheme to artificially inflate the stock price of EPL between May 15, 2015 and August 13, 2015, and/or selling their personally held shares in EPL shortly after making the alleged false or misleading statements despite having not sold any shares during the previous six months and not selling the shares pursuant to any Rule 10b5-1 trading plan.  After dismissing without prejudice the original and amended complaints in this action, the Court held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged misstatements and a strong inference that defendants were aware of the falsity of such statements, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.

Read more

On July 28, 2017, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court decision dismissing a putative class action lawsuit against Quality Systems, Inc., (“QSI” or the “Company”), a company that develops and markets management software for medical and dental providers, and several of its officers.  In re Quality Systems, Inc. Secs. Litig., No. 15-55173 (9th Cir. July 28, 2017).  Plaintiffs brought a putative shareholder class action against defendants alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 in connection with statements made over the course of several months regarding the Company’s past and projected sales as well as guidance given to investors about the Company’s projected growth and revenue.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that many of the defendants’ statements “mixed” forward and non-forward looking statements and holding for the first time in the Ninth Circuit that it is appropriate to consider the forward and non-forward looking aspects of a “mixed” statement separately when evaluating a securities claim.

Read more

On July 26, 2017, Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action alleging that GoPro, Inc. (“GoPro”), its CEO, Nicholas Woodman, and other GoPro executives described in the Complaint but not named as defendants, had violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the rollout of a new camera and line of airborne drones.  Bielousov v. GoPro, Inc., No. 16-CV-06654-CW, 2017 WL 3168522 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2017).  In so doing, the Court found that plaintiff had adequately alleged that a statement by GoPro’s CFO that “we believe” GoPro is “on track to make” its 2016 revenue guidance, was not covered by the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and, along with certain other representations, was false and mischaracterized the new drone’s availability and capabilities.

On July 19, 2017, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially dismissed a putative class action against Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaf (“VW AG”), Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”), Volkswagen Group of America Finance, LLC (“VWGoAF”), and former executives of VW AG and VWGoA.  In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2762 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2017).  Plaintiffs are institutional investors who purchased bonds offered by VWGoAF.  VWGoAF is a wholly-owned subsidiary of VWGoA, and the bonds were guaranteed by VW AG, the ultimate parent of VWGoA and VWGoAF.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to disclose Volkswagen’s use of “defeat device” software to mask emissions in the company’s diesel engines, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).  The Court concluded that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the bond offering memorandum was misleading, and that some, but not all, of the defendants made statements and omissions in the offering memorandum with scienter.

Read more

On July 10, 2017, Judge John G. Koeltl of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative securities fraud class action against E*TRADE Securities LLC (“E*TRADE”), E*TRADE Financial Corporation (“E*TRADE Financial), and one current and one former officer of E*TRADE Financial.  Schwab v. E*TRADE Fin. Corp., No. 16-cv-05891 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2017).  Plaintiff alleged that E*TRADE misled its clients by falsely representing that it would execute orders consistent with its duty of “best execution,” which requires it to use “reasonable diligence” to obtain the most favorable price for a customer under “prevailing market conditions.”  Plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as control person claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead reliance or scienter, and also failed to plead culpable participation sufficient to state a control person claim.

Read more

On July 20, 2017, Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed claims brought by shareholders of Kohl’s Corporation (“Kohl’s”) against the company and two of its officers.  Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers et al. v. Kohl's Corp. et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01159 (E.D. Wisc. July 20, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ financial disclosures during the class period materially misrepresented and failed to disclose the extent of accounting errors related to Kohl’s leasing agreements.  Plaintiffs brought claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as control person claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to establish that any of the defendants acted with the requisite scienter to support a securities fraud claim.

Read more

On June 28, 2017, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled, among other things, that allegations of knowledge of “defeat devices” did not equate to knowledge of the probability of exposure from the devices and granted in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft and certain of its affiliates (“VW”) and officers and directors, asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as additional “control person” claims against the officers and directors under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC), 2017 WL 2798525 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that VW’s financial statements and statements regarding its U.S. vehicles’ compliance with diesel emissions standards were misleading because VW had failed to disclose, in various manners, that it had been using “defeat device” software to manipulate emissions tests in vehicles sold in the United States.  After plaintiffs were given leave to replead following an earlier motion to dismiss, the Court held that the amended complaint’s allegations supported claims regarding financial statements after May 2014, but dismissed claims regarding earlier alleged misstatements.  In addition, the Court dismissed claims against one individual defendant for failure to sufficiently allege scienter and “control.”

Read more

On June 14, 2017, Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (“Juno” or the “Company”), a biopharmaceutical corporation, and certain of its senior officers.  In re Juno Therapeutics, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 1069 (W.D. Wash. June 14, 2017).  In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by repeatedly touting positive results from the first phase of a clinical trial for a new cancer treatment, while failing to disclose certain negative outcomes associated with the second phase of a clinical trial.  In denying the motion to dismiss, the Court ruled that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the omitted information was material to investors and that the defendants were deliberately reckless in failing to disclose it. 

Read more

​On June 13, 2017, Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action against gold mining and exploration company Pretium Resources, Inc. (“Pretium”) under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In re Pretium Resources Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 13-CV-7552 (VSB), 2017 WL 2560005 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that Pretium’s press releases were misleading because they contained statements regarding a major gold exploration site that were contrary to views expressed to the company by its consultants.  The Court held that plaintiffs had failed to identify actionable misrepresentations or omissions and to adequately plead scienter. 

Read more

On June 6, 2017, United States District Judge George A. O’Toole, Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against Sonus Networks, Inc., its CEO and its CFO.  Sousa v. Sonus Networks, Inc., et al., No. 16-10657-GAO (D. Mass. June 6, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) (and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and separately alleged that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by misleading investors regarding Sonus’ revenue projection for the first quarter of 2015.  The Court held that plaintiff had not met the heightened pleading standard for alleging securities fraud under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), finding that plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged a material misrepresentation or omission with respect to certain allegations and had not sufficiently alleged scienter with respect to other allegations.  

Read more

On May 12, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities class action against biopharmaceutical company Biogen Inc. and three of its officers.  In Re: Biogen Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 16-1976, 2017 WL 1963468 (1st Cir. May 12, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by concealing declining sales of multiple sclerosis drug Tecfidera following the death of a trial patient, leading to a stock drop when the company later reduced its growth forecasts for 2015.  The First Circuit, in affirming the prior ruling of United States District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice, held that although the amended complaint gave rise to a “plausible” inference of scienter on the part of defendants, it did not support a “strong” inference of scienter as required under the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”).

Read more

On April 27, 2017, Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a putative securities fraud class action against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and certain of its executives, in which plaintiffs alleged that the company knew or consciously disregarded that statements made in multiple financial reports between 2011 and 2013 were false, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).  In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 1536223 (D.N.J. Apr. 27, 2017).  The Court had already dismissed this case twice without prejudice.  This time the Court dismissed the claims with prejudice.  

Read more

On May 1, 2017, Judge Edward Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against Finisar Corporation and certain executives, in which plaintiffs alleged that the company had falsely denied an inventory build-up of key telecom products by Finisar’s customers, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).  In re Finisar Corp. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 1549485 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2017).  The Court had previously dismissed the case for failure to allege a material misrepresentation, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged a false statement in that they asserted that defendants had denied knowledge of an inventory build-up by customers in the face of evidence that they knew of the issue.  On remand, the District Court found the complaint also adequately alleged scienter and loss causation. 

Read more

On April 26, 2017, District Judge John F. Keenan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss brought by defendants Investment Technology Group, Inc. (“ITG” or “the company”), and three of its current and former executives.  In re: Investment Technology Group Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06369 (S.D.N.Y. April 26, 2017).  Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  While the Court dismissed the claims against two individual defendants—ITG’s CFO and its General Counsel—on the ground that plaintiff failed to plead a strong inference of scienter as to those defendants, the Court allowed the plaintiff’s Section 10(b) claim against ITG and its former CEO to proceed, narrowing the claims to a five-month period in 2011 and holding that the alleged misstatements outside of the class period were not actionable.
​
Read more

On April 21, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a shareholder class action lawsuit against certain officers and directors of ATP Oil & Gas Corporation (“ATP”).  Neiman et al. v. Buhlman et al., Case No. 15-31094 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2017).  Plaintiffs, who alleged that defendants misrepresented the production of a new oil well, the liquidity of the company, and the reason that the former CEO had resigned, brought claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, as well as control-person claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Louisiana district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, holding that plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead scienter in support of each of their claims.

Read more

On April 7, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities fraud class action against the biopharmaceutical developer Zafgen, Inc. (“Zafgen”) and its CEO.  Brennan v. Zafgen, Inc., No. 16-2057, 2017 WL 1291194 (1st Cir. Apr. 7, 2017).  Plaintiffs had asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, alleging that in Zafgen’s IPO registration statement and other public statements defendants omitted information regarding adverse events during clinical trials for Zafgen’s only drug in development, the obesity drug Beloranib.  The Court held that plaintiffs did not adequately plead scienter under the heightened requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), stressing that a defendant’s mere knowledge of omitted information is not sufficient to support a cogent and compelling inference of fraudulent intent.

Read more

On March 29, 2017, Chief District Judge Lee Rosenthal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division dismissed a putative class action against Plains All American Pipeline, a major national oil and gas pipeline operator, and its holding companies (collectively, “Plains Defendants”), as well as individual officer and director defendants of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (collectively, “Individual Defendants”), and financial institutions which acted as underwriters in the securities offerings at issue (collectively, “Underwriter Defendants”).  In re Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. Sec. Litig., Case No. H:15-2404 (S.D.T.X. Mar. 29, 2017).  Plaintiffs, individuals and institutional investors who purchased equity and debt instruments issued by entities affiliated with Plains All American Pipeline in seven different public offerings, brought claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  The claims were brought after a May 2015 oil spill allegedly caused by a ruptured Plains pipeline that resulted in approximately 101,000 gallons of oil spilling into the Pacific Ocean.  Plaintiffs alleged that, prior to and after the spill, the company falsely claimed to have a comprehensive, effective environmental and regulatory compliance program to prevent oil spills and, if such spills occurred, to quickly remediate the effects.

Read more

On March 23, 2017, Judge Kimba Wood of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative securities fraud class action against Shiloh Industries, Inc. (“Shiloh” or the “Company”), and certain of its officers and directors.  Thomas v. Shiloh Indus. Inc., 15-cv-7449 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2017).  Plaintiffs, purported shareholders of Shiloh, alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) when they allowed misallocated surcharges on the Company’s balance sheet to remain uncorrected, which thereby understated the cost of goods sold and inflated inventory.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs had failed to plead with particularity facts supporting their claim that defendants were aware of or recklessly disregarded indications of accounting issues that ultimately resulted in a restatement of Shiloh’s financial results for the first two fiscal quarters of 2015.      

Read more

On March 16, 2017, District Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative class action against Etsy, Inc., its CEO, CFO, certain of its directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering (“IPO”).  Altayyar, et al., v. Etsy, Inc., et al., No. 1:15-cv-2785 (E.D.N.Y. March 16, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by artificially inflating Etsy’s stock price through misrepresentations leading up to Etsy’s IPO, causing plaintiffs to suffer losses when additional information was revealed and the company’s stock price dropped.  Plaintiffs also brought claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against all defendants, as well as claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.  In dismissing the complaint in its entirety, the Court found that plaintiffs had failed to establish that the company’s statements were objectively false, intentionally inaccurate, or materially misleading when made.

Read more

On March 6, 2017, Judge Robert Sweet of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action against 6D Global Technologies, Inc. (“6D” or the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors.  Puddu v. 6D Glob. Techs., Inc., No. 15-cv-8061 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017).  Plaintiffs—purported shareholders of 6D—alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 when they failed to disclose the Company’s association with an individual whom United States regulators have charged in connection with stock manipulation schemes.  The decision illustrates the challenges plaintiffs face when making claims based on alleged omissions because often there is no duty to disclose the omitted information.   

Read more

On February 27, 2017, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Wal-Mart de México SAB de CV (“Wal-Mex”) American Depositary Shares (“ADRs”) against Wal-Mex, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”), and two Wal-Mex executives.  Fogel v. Wal-Mart de México Sab de CV, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2017 WL 751155 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).  The complaint alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on allegations that Wal-Mex’s annual reports for 2004 through 2011 failed to disclose an alleged bribery scheme.  In a detailed and thorough opinion that provides an overview of the state of Rule 10b-5 jurisprudence in the Second Circuit, the Court held that many of plaintiff’s claims were time barred, and that plaintiff failed to state a claim with respect to those claims that were timely.

Read more

On February 24, 2017, Judge Edward Chen 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 class action against Leapfrog Enterprises, its current CEO, and its former CFO.  The complaint alleged that Leapfrog violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by falsely representing in its financial disclosures that it did not need to take write-offs related to the value of its goodwill and long-lived assets.  In re Leapfrog Enterprise, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 15-cv-00347-EMC, 2017 WL 732909 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017).  Considering the difference in the relevant disclosures, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims related to the goodwill write-off, but not the claims related to the write-off of long-lived assets.

Read more

On February 22, 2017, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit brought against Chinese mobile game developer iDreamSky Technology Ltd. (“iDreamSky”), its officers and directors and four underwriters.  In re: iDreamSky Technology Limited Securities Litigation, No. 15-CV-2514 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2017).  The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Sections 11, 12(a)(1), 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), based on allegations that the Company omitted to disclose the adverse financial impact of delays in the release of iDreamSky’s Cookie Run game in China, as well as the alleged lack of an adequate third-party billing platform.  

Read more

On February 21, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative shareholder suit brought against officers, directors, principal shareholders and underwriters of EveryWare Global, Inc. (“EveryWare”), a now-bankrupt Ohio-based manufacturer of kitchenware.  IBEW Local No. 58 Annuity Fund v EveryWare Glob., Inc., No. 16-3445, 2017 WL 677487 (6th Cir. Feb. 21, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that EveryWare’s officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), Securities Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by knowingly providing false and misleading financial projections. Plaintiffs also alleged that various defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) because the registration statement and prospectus purportedly contained material misrepresentations.  The Court dismissed both the Exchange Act and Securities Act claims, finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that EveryWare’s officers acted with the requisite intent to deceive shareholders or that the registration statement and prospectus contained material misrepresentations.

Read more

On February 17, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities class action brought against DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. (“DreamWorks”), its CEO and CFO.  Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., et al., No. 15-55945, 2017 WL 655789 (9th Cir Feb. 17, 2017).  Plaintiff had alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, along with Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by knowingly making false or misleading statements regarding the profitability of DreamWorks’ animated movie “Turbo” during announcements of second- and third-quarter results in 2013.  The Court affirmed the dismissal of the claims, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately allege a false or misleading statement or loss causation, underscoring that complaints filed in response to poorer-than-expected results and/or the mere announcement of a regulatory investigation are not likely to succeed.

Read more

On February 8, 2017, Judge Robin Rosenberg of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed with prejudice a putative shareholder class action against KLX Inc. and certain of its senior officers under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In re KLX Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 9:16-CV-80023, slip op. (S.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that KLX made misstatements and omissions (i) regarding the financial health of KLX’s energy services division and its employment figures and (ii) as a result of recognizing a good will and long-term asset impairment charge later than it should have.  In a complete and thorough opinion, the Court reiterated that neither puffery nor optimism provides grounds for a fraud claim, that forward looking statements are entitled to safe-harbor protection even when combined with representations that arguably refer to current facts, that GAAP violations alone are not sufficient for fraud, and that scienter should be judged with consideration of indications of non-fraudulent intent.   

Read more

On December 27, 2016, Judge Arthur J. Tarnow of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed a putative class action against Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. (“Esperion” or the “Company”), a pharmaceutical company, and its chief executive officer.  Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 10089 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 27, 2016).  Plaintiffs, purchasers of Esperion common stock, alleged that defendants made false statements regarding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) approval process for a new drug in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The Court held, among other things, that plaintiffs failed to allege facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter, and, in particular, that “[t]he inquiry is inherently comparative” in that it considers whether the inference of scienter is as strong or stronger than the opposing inference of non-culpability.  The Court also held that forward-looking statements about the approval process were protected under the PSLRA safe harbor.  The decision, one of many recent decisions involving statements about drug approvals, highlights the case-specific nature of the analysis and that specific disclosures about regulatory approval risks can provide a meaningful defense in securities cases.  

Read more

On December 5, 2016, Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a securities class action against Hortonworks, Inc. (“Hortonworks”) and certain of its officers, with leave to amend.  Monachelli v. Hortonworks, 3:16‑cv‑00980-SI (N.D.Cal. Dec. 5, 2016).  Plaintiffs alleged that Hortonworks violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) through a series of misleading statements regarding the sufficiency of available capital that were made shortly before the company raised funds through a secondary equity offering.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for several reasons, including because some of the alleged misstatements were forward-looking statements that qualified for protection under the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”).    

Read more

On November 10, 2016, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by defendants MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain MetLife offerings.  City of Westland Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. MetLife, Inc., No. 12-cv-0256 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2016).  Plaintiff alleged that MetLife misled investors regarding its financial performance because certain loss reserves underlying its financial statements failed to take into consideration policy holders who had died but had not filed claims yet.  The Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) because plaintiff failed to plead that defendants acted with scienter, but the Court ruled that plaintiff had adequately alleged a material omission and permitted plaintiff’s claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) to proceed.  

Read more

On October 18, 2016, Judge Christina A. Snyder of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a putative securities class action brought against defendant SouFun Holdings Ltd.“ —a Chinese online real estate business—and certain of its officers Maresca v. SouFun Holdings Ltd., No. 15 Civ. 8508 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2016).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially misleading statements and omissions regarding the scale and success of SouFun’s new rental brokerage business.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead materiality or scienter because (i) the brokerage activity at issue was not a significant portion of the company’s overall business and (ii) plaintiffs failed to plead facts from which to infer that senior officers in the company knew about the allegedly fraudulent transactions.   

Read more

On October 26, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of a putative securities class action against Arena Pharmaceuticals (“Arena” or the “Company”) where the district court ruled that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter.  Schueneman v. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 14-55633, -- F.3d ---- (9th Cir. Oct. 26, 2016).  This reversal sheds light on how courts sometimes evaluate scienter when an issuer comes under “an affirmative duty to disclose” adverse information because it has disclosed positive information, and the disclosure of the adverse information is found to be necessary to make the disclosures that have been made not misleading.  

Read more

On October 18, 2016, Judge Sam Sparks of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed without prejudice a putative class action against EZCorp, Incorporated (“EZCorp”) for failure to adequately plead that defendants had acted with fraudulent intent.  Wu Winfred Huang v. EZCorp, Inc., 15-CA-00608-SS, 2016 WL 6092717 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2016).  Plaintiffs claimed that EZCorp and its CEO knew or recklessly disregarded the possibility that EZCorp’s reported financial results were materially false and misleading when made.  The Court’s rejection of plaintiffs’ confidential witness allegations is an example of the rigor with which such allegations often are analyzed.

Read more

On October 7, 2016, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed a putative class action against Celladon Corporation and two of its executives.  Tadros v. Celladon Corporation et al., No. 15-cv-01458 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016).  The Court held that plaintiff failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) in alleging a material misrepresentation or omission and scienter in support of its securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.  Plaintiff alleged that Celladon and its executives intentionally misled investors through false or misleading statements regarding the success of early clinical trials of Mydicar, the company’s prospective cardiovascular drug.  According to plaintiff, Celladon’s stock price declined by 80% after announcements by the company in April 2015 that Mydicar failed to meet its goals in the second phase of the trial.  Plaintiff brought this action in July 2015.

Read more

On September 30, 2016, Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action brought against MDC Partners, Inc. (“MDC”)—an advertising agency holding company—and several of its current and former officers and directors.  N. Collier Fire & Rescue Dist. Firefighter Pension Plan v. MDC Partners, Inc., No. 15 Civ. 6034 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016).  Plaintiffs claimed that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Actmisstating the amount of compensation paid to MDC’s founder and former CEO. The Court held that the alleged misrepresentations regarding the CEO’s compensation were not qualitatively material and dismissed the claims.   

Read more

On September 7, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit affirmed the Southern District of Florida’s dismissal of shareholder securities fraud claims against The ADT Corporation (“ADT”).  IBEW Local 595 Pension and Money Purchase Pension Plans, et al v. The ADT Corporation et al, No. 15-13595, 2016 WL 4660814 (11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2016).  Plaintiffs claimed that ADT misrepresented and failed to disclose that its board’s motivation for approving a leveraged repurchase of company stock was to protect itself from threats of replacement by an activist hedge fund (the “Fund”) and that ADT and the Fund engaged in deceptive conduct in executing the repurchase plan, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Court held that ADT was not required to disclose its motives for the repurchase and the defendants had not engaged in manipulative conduct.

Read more

On August 24, 2016, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by putative class members under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against defendants BlackBerry Ltd. and certain of its officers.  Pearlstein, et al. v. BlackBerry, et al., No. 15-3991 (2d Cir. August 24, 2016).  The Court, however, vacated U.S. District Court Judge Thomas P. Griesa’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, noting that the record was “insufficient” to determine whether leave was proper.  The Court remanded the case for reconsideration of the motion for leave to amend “[b]ecause the district court did not explain its basis for denying leave to amend.”

Read more

On August 22, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of a putative securities class action filed against Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (“Cooper”) and two of its officers.  OFI Asset Mgmt. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., No. 15-2664 (3d Cir. Aug. 22, 2016).  The Third Circuit held that plaintiffs’ lengthy allegations amounted to nothing more than claims of fraud-by-hindsight and thus did not meet the requirement that claims of securities fraud be pled with particularity.  

Read more

On August 18, 2016, Judge Kimba Wood of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action against FXCM Inc., a currency brokerage firm, and its two co-founders, with leave to replead.  Ret. Bd. of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chi. v. FXCM Inc., 15-cv-3599 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2016).  In dismissing plaintiff’s claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”), the Court found that plaintiff failed to plead allegations sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter, holding that the complaint failed to allege either “motive or opportunity” or “strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.”  Judge Wood’s decision joins the well-established Second Circuit precedent that plaintiff cannot meet the heightened pleading requirement merely by alleging that the defendant was motivated by a common desire to keep the corporation’s profits or by alleging “fraud by hindsight,” and confirmed that the standard for pleading scienter on the basis of recklessness is high.

Read more

On August 11, 2016, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the New York Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss fraud claims asserted against sponsors and underwriters of twenty-three residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”).  IKB International, S.A. v. Morgan Stanley, 2016 WL 4217814 (1^st Dep’t Aug. 11, 2016).  Defendants argued that the plaintiff had not adequately alleged its justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentation and that, when acting solely as underwriters of certain of the challenged transactions, they made no actionable misrepresentations.  The Court held that the plaintiff had adequately pleaded justifiable reliance on the purported misstatements and that the underwriters’ participation in the RMBS at issue, as pleaded, was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

Read more

On July 25, 2016, Judge David Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed, without prejudice, a putative class action brought by shareholders of El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (“El Pollo”).  See Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. No. SA CV 15-1343-DOC (KESx) (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2016).  Plaintiffs alleged that El Pollo and certain of its executives made false statements concerning expected sales by failing to disclose the negative sales impact of recent changes in menu prices and offerings, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Court held, however, that plaintiffs had not alleged any actionable false statements, nor pleaded particularized facts creating a sufficiently compelling inference that El Pollo executives made the challenged statements with scienter.

Read more

On July 20, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit revived a putative class action against Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”).  Ohio Public Employees Retirement Sys. v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., et al., No. 14-4189, 2016 WL 3916011 (6th Cir. Jul. 20, 2016).  In reversing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the Court found that plaintiff’s allegations regarding loss causation were sufficient to sustain a claim against Freddie Mac under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) for making materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning its financial health.  

Read more

On July 19, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a proposed shareholder class action against Deloitte & Touch LLP.  Sanchez et al. v. Crocs, Inc. et al., No. 11-1116 (10th Cir. July 19, 2016).  The Court held that plaintiffs had not “established a strong inference that Deloitte acted recklessly, and consequently, their . . . claim fail[ed].” Plaintiffs had alleged that Crocs, Inc. hid increasingly unsellable inventory totals in 2006 and 2007 before announcing a $70 million inventory write-down in 2008, and that Deloitte knew about or recklessly disregarded “red flags” that should have alerted the auditing firm to the company’s impending financial troubles. 

Read more

On July 6, 2016, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice federal securities class claims against the former CEO of an Australian pharmaceutical company, QRx Pharma Ltd. (“QRx”). Gillis v. QRx Pharma Ltd., No. 15 Civ. 4868 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2016).  Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connections with statements about the FDA approval process made while one of the company’s drugs was under review.  Judge Engelmayer granted the CEO’s motion to dismiss the claims on the grounds that the alleged misrepresentations about the FDA’s process and the likelihood of approval were inactionable opinion and/or forward-looking statements and because the complaint failed to allege scienter adequately.  This decision signals continuing skepticism of securities claims against pharmaceutical and medical device companies that are brought when developmental products are not successful in trials and/or do not receive regulatory approvals.

Read more

On July 5, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities fraud class action complaint filed by shareholders of airplane part manufacturer Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.  See Anderson et al. v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings et al., No. 15-3142 (10th Cir. July 5, 2016). Plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In the wake of defendants’ October 2012 announcement of a forward loss of $434.6 million in connection with specified projects, plaintiffs alleged that defendants had knowingly overstated the success of their efforts to cut costs and meet production deadlines for those projects in more than 40 statements in 2011 and 2012. The Court held that plaintiffs’ complaint was properly dismissed because they had failed to allege facts creating an inference of scienter that was cogent and compelling in light of the alternative inference that defendants had merely been overly optimistic.

Read more

On June 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued decisions as to separate securities class action lawsuits, dismissing complaints against defendants Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Cellceutrix Corporation, in Fahey v. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 14-5582, slip op. (9th Cir. Jun. 8, 2016) and Zagami v. Cellceutrix Corporation, et al., No. 15 Civ. 7194, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 8, 2016).  

Read More

On May 24, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of securities fraud claims asserted against a corporation and the corporation’s CEO and CFO.  Doshi v. Gen. Cable Corp., No. 15 Civ. 5621, 2016 BL 164374 (6th Cir. May 24, 2016).  Although a corporate executive’s knowledge typically will be imputed to a corporation, the Court held that an executive’s state of mind, i.e., intent, will not be imputed unless that executive himself or herself makes a public misstatement.    This decision confirms the Sixth Circuit’s decision in In re Omnicare, Inc. Sec. Litig., 769 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2014) and makes clear that courts must review “all the allegations holistically” to determine whether a corporation’s scienter has been adequately pleaded.  Plaintiffs had alleged that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Securities Act”) by recklessly issuing and/or approving materially false public financial statements.   

Read More

On May 23, 2016,  the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a jury verdict finding that defendants had violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), and invalidated more than $1.2 billion in civil penalties.  The Court ruled that the Government had failed to establish that defendants, including Bank of America N.A. and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”), had committed fraud because there was no evidence of the requisite intent to defraud at the time the contracts leading to the loan sales at issue were executed. U.S. ex rel. O’Donnell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., — F.3d —, 2016 WL 2956743 (2d Cir. 2016).  The Second Circuit noted that, absent contemporaneous intent to defraud at the time a contract is entered into, the Government’s case amounted to nothing more than intentional breach of contract, which is not a predicate for a FIRREA offense.
 
Read More

On May 20, 2016,  the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on summary judgment claims against a Hong Kong-based auditor brought under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 11 the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), holding that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the auditor had either recklessly issued “clean” audit opinions or did not believe the opinions were true when issued.   In re Puda Coal Securities Litigation, Inc., — F.3d —, 2016 WL 2942415 (2d Cir. 2016).  In so holding, the Court clarified that “audit reports are statements of opinion subject to the Omnicare standard for Section 11 claims,” and held absent evidence of subjective disbelief or actionable omissions of information regarding the basis for the opinion, there could be no claim under Section 11.

Read More

On May 10, 2016, Best Buy shareholder plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, seeking en banc review of the first circuit court ruling to apply the United States Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Halliburton II, and hold that a defendant had rebutted the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance by showing lack of price impact.  IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund et al. v. Best Buy Co. Inc. et al., case number 14-3178, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  Plaintiffs seek rehearing of the Court’s 2-1 decision in April, which relied on Halliburton II in overturning the class certification order of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, after finding that the District Court had ignored evidence presented by defendants demonstrating that the alleged misstatements did not impact the share price.  In seeking rehearing, Plaintiffs are attempting to align the Eighth Circuit with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, which have held that for purposes of invoking the fraud-on-the-market presumption, a plaintiff may point to evidence that a false statement maintained an inflated price until the price dropped as a result of a corrective disclosure.

Read More

On April 22, 2016, Judge Kimba Wood of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), holding that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) safe-harbor for forward-looking statements does not apply to statements that incorporate misleading representations of present fact.  In re Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., No. 14 Civ. 8925, 2016 WL 1629341 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2016).  Plaintiffs had alleged misrepresentations regarding the inventory levels of defendant’s primary products, intentionally increasing levels beyond customer demand, in order to make the company appear more financially robust than it was.

Read More