On March 18, 2020, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed a putative class action claiming violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 14a-9 and Regulation G, and breach of fiduciary duty, in connection with the acquisition of an oil and gas exploration company (the “Company”).  Mack v. Resolute Energy Corp., No. CV 19-77-RGA, 2020 WL 1286175 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the proxy statement omitted certain financial projections.  The Court dismissed the complaint, holding that it did not adequately plead materiality or loss causation.
 

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 13, 2020, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied class certification in an action against a restaurant franchising company and certain of its executives asserting claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the company’s IPO.  Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., No. CV 18-7469 PSG (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020), ECF No. 94.  The Court previously determined at the motion to dismiss stage that allegations based on a statement in an SEC filing expressing confidence in the “track record and vision” of the management team was potentially misleading because it allegedly omitted that certain subsidiaries had entered bankruptcy and the involvement of a company executive in managing those subsidiaries.  Slip op. at 3, 6-7.  However, the Court denied the motion for class certification, holding that the predominance and superiority requirements were not satisfied because individualized inquiries would be necessary to establish putative class members’ knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the bankruptcies and the executive’s involvement with those subsidiaries.  Id. at 7, 9.
 

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 16, 2020, Judge Kimba Wood 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 restaurant chain and certain of its executives.  Oklahoma Law Enforcement Ret. Sys. v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., No. 18-CV-7927 (KMW), 2020 WL 1243808 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misleading public statements regarding the company’s culture while at the same time enabling workplace sexual harassment.  The Court held that plaintiff had failed to adequately allege any actionable misstatements or omissions but granted plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to cure the deficiencies.

 

On March 18, 2020, the Supreme Court of Delaware reversed a decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery and affirmatively endorsed the enforceability of federal forum-selection provisions, in a Delaware corporation’s certificate of incorporation, that require claims under the Securities Act of 1933 be filed in federal court as opposed to state court.  Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, No. 346, 2019 (Del. Mar. 18, 2020).  The decision should help to stem the tide of, or even substantially eliminate, state court Securities Act filings that have increasingly proliferated since the March 2018 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, 138 S. Ct. 1061 (2018), which held that state courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate class actions brought under the Securities Act, notwithstanding the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), and that such actions generally cannot be removed from state to federal court.
 

On March 9, 2020, Judge William H. Orrick 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 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against a software company (the “Company”) and two of its executive officers.  Ryan Scheller, et. al. v. Nutanix, Inc., et. al., No. 19-cv-01651-WHO (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged—based primarily on statements allegedly made by seven confidential witnesses (the “CWs”)—that defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other things, the Company’s internal operations, business relationships, product quality, and sales performance.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege that the Company’s public statements were false or misleading, and that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege scienter.
 

On March 9, 2020, Justice Andrew Borrok of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Commercial Division, granted in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against a used car e-commerce company (the “Company”), certain of its executives and directors, and the underwriters for its initial public offering (“IPO”) of American Depository Shares (“ADSs”).  In re Uxin Limited Securities Litigation, No. 650427/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 9, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning changes to the Company’s business model and certain financial and operational data reported by the Company in connection with its IPO.  The Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.
 

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 28, 2020, Judge M. James Lorenz of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed a putative securities class action against an investment management company (“Company”) and its clearing bank (“Clearing Bank,” and collectively, “Defendants”) that alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  Jiao v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 17-cv-409-L (MDD) (S.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2020).  Plaintiffs, who were customers of Defendants, brought the lawsuit after the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) entered into a consent and cease-and-desist order with Defendants (“SEC Order”) for violations of the Customer Protection Rule of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa; 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c3-3 (“CPR”), which required Defendants to maintain physical possession or control over customers’ fully paid and excess margin securities.  The Court dismissed the action with prejudice because claims under Section 10(b) require a plaintiff to plead and prove an “out-of-pocket” loss, which Plaintiffs failed to do.
 

On February 21, 2020, Judge George H. Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California adopted as final its tentative ruling, dated February 20, dismissing a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a real estate investment trust and certain of its executives.  Brian Barry v. Colony NorthStar, Inc. et al., No. 18-CV-02888 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations in public statements regarding financial projections and fundraising that were misleading because those projections had become unreachable.  The Court held that plaintiff failed to allege an actionable misstatement or omission and, because plaintiff had already amended its complaint twice before, the Court denied leave to amend.
 

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 26, 2020, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed certain claims in a putative class action asserting violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and California state law by a cryptocurrency firm and certain of its executives.  Vladi Zakinov, et al. v. Ripple Labs, Inc., et al., No. 18-CV-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that the cryptocurrency created by the company was an unregistered security and, further, that the company had misrepresented the cryptocurrency’s long-term value.  The Court held that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the cryptocurrency was an unregistered security, but dismissed the misrepresentation claims for failure to allege an actionable misstatement or omission.
 

On February 26, 2020, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by Justice Samuel Alito, held that for purposes of assessing the appropriate statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), a plaintiff does not gain “actual knowledge” of allegedly improper investments disclosed in documents that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading.  Intel Corp. Inv. Policy Comm. v. Sulyma,—U.S.—, 2020 WL 908881 (2020).  Thus, under such circumstances, the applicable statute of limitations is ERISA’s general six-year statute of repose, which begins to run from “the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation,” rather than the three-year limitations period, which begins to run from the earliest date on which a plaintiff gains “actual knowledge” of the breach or violation.  Id. at *2.
 

On February 19, 2020, Judge Pamela A. Barker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against an aerospace component design and manufacturing company (the “Company”) and two of its executive officers.  In re TransDigm Group Inc., No. 17-cv-01677-PAB (N.D. Ohio Feb. 19, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company’s operations, business, and prospects that resulted in a drop in the Company’s stock price when the Company made certain purported corrective disclosures.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, finding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege materiality or loss causation, and denied leave to amend.
 

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 5, 2020, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sustained some but not all claims in a putative class action asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  Twin Master Fund, Ltd. v. Akorn, Inc., No. 19-CV-3648 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 05, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company knowingly made false statements and omissions regarding the company’s compliance with FDA regulations governing data integrity and manufacturing in public statements and filings and in a publicly filed merger agreement.  The Court held that plaintiffs had adequately alleged misrepresentations as to a number of statements, but dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with respect to certain others.

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 January 28, 2020, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied defendant’s motion to dismiss a putative securities class action brought against a multinational technology and communications corporation headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, in connection with American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) which were not sponsored by the foreign issuer and were traded on over-the-counter markets.  Stoyas v. Toshiba Corp., No. 15-cv-4194 (C.D. Cal. 2020).  The Court had previously dismissed plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and denied leave to amend.  The Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, was based on the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), which held that Section 10(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5 only apply to (i) the purchase or sale of a security listed on a U.S. securities exchange, or (ii) the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States. 
 

On January 27, 2020, Judge Richard G. Seeborg 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 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against a pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and two of its executive officers.  Immanuel Lake, et al. v. Zogenix, Inc., et. al., No. 19-cv-01975-RS (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made material omissions concerning the Company’s New Drug Application (“NDA”) it was submitting to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for a medication designed to treat seizures.  According to plaintiffs, the Company’s stock price fell approximately 20% when the alleged omission was revealed to the market through the FDA’s rejection of the NDA.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a misstatement or omission of a material fact and scienter, but granted leave to amend.
 

On January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction a putative class action against a chemical products manufacturer (the “Company”), certain of its officers and directors, and underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) and secondary public offering (“SPO”) (the “Underwriters”).  The Court remanded claims against the remaining defendants, companies from which the Company was spun off in the IPO (“Predecessors”), for the trial court to transfer the venue from Dallas County to Montgomery County.  Venator Materials PLC v. Macomb Cnty. Employees’ Retirement Sys. & Firemen’s Retirement Sys. of St. Louis, No. 05-19-01177-CV, 2020 WL 289296 (Tex. App. Jan. 21, 2020).  Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by failing to disclose the effects of a fire at one of the Company’s facilities.  The Court held that the Texas contacts of the Company, the individual defendants, and the Underwriters were insufficient to confer general or specific personal jurisdiction.
 

On January 17, 2017, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, against a tax preparation services provider (the “Company”) and its former CEO and CFO (collectively, “Defendants”).  In re Liberty Tax, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:17-CV-07327 (NGG) (RML) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions about the Company’s compliance efforts and internal controls, which concealed the CEO’s extensive misconduct that ultimately caused steep declines in the Company’s stock price.  The Court dismissed the action on the basis that the statements at issue were unrelated to the CEO’s misconduct or were mere puffery, and that plaintiffs failed to establish loss causation linked to any corrective disclosures. 
 

On January 3, 2020, Judge Edmond E. Chang of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class of investors in an action alleging that two major food companies (“Defendants”) manipulated the wheat futures market.  Plaintiffs asserted claims against Defendants under Sections 6(c)(1) and 9(a)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (“Sherman Act”), and for common law unjust enrichment.  Harry Ploss v. Kraft Foods Group Inc. et al., No. 1:15-cv-02937 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2020).     

Looking ahead, we preview cases currently pending before the Supreme Court—which have already been accepted for review by the Court—that may be of particular interest to readers of the Need-to-Know Litigation Weekly.  These cases pertain to various topics in Securities, Enforcement, and, as to one, arbitration.

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 10, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a chicken producing company and certain of its executives.  Gamm v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., —F.3d—, 2019 WL 6704666 (2d Cir. 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ SEC filings contained misrepresentations because they failed to disclose an illegal antitrust conspiracy to drive up chicken prices by reducing supply and to manipulate a chicken price index.  The Court held that the complaint was properly dismissed because plaintiffs failed to plead with sufficient particularity facts supporting the alleged antitrust conspiracy, explaining that “when a securities fraud complaint claims that statements were rendered false or misleading through the nondisclosure of illegal activity, the facts of the underlying illegal acts must be pleaded with particularity in accordance with the requirements of Rule 9 and the PSLRA.”  Id. at *9.

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 15, 2019, Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed a putative class action brought by investors who maintained investment accounts at a brokerage company.  Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract and negligence under Nebraska state law against the brokerage company and its affiliates, alleging that they failed to properly manage a tax-loss harvesting feature of certain investment portfolios.  Knowles v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., No. 8:19-cv-47, slip op. (D. Neb. Nov. 15, 2019), ECF No. 36.  The Court held that these claims were precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) and dismissed the action with prejudice.
 

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 24, 2019, Judge Charles T. Lee of the Connecticut Superior Court granted a motion to strike claims alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) in connection with an initial public offering brought against the issuer, certain of its officers, and the underwriters of the offering.  City of Livonia Retiree Health & Disability Benefits Plan v. Pitney Bowes Inc., No. X08 FST CV 18 6038160 S (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 24, 2019).  The Court had previously granted a protective order staying discovery pending the disposition of the motion to strike pursuant to the discovery stay provided in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, in one of the first state court decisions after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver Cty. Employees Ret. Fund, 138 S. Ct. 1061 (2018).  See State Court Stays Discovery Under the PSLRA During Pendency of Motion to Strike, Need to Know Litigation Newsletter (May 29, 2019), https://www.lit-sl.shearman.com/State-Court-Stays-Discovery-Under-The-PSLRA-During-Pendency.  In granting the motion to strike, the Court held that plaintiffs had failed to plead violations of the Securities Act because they did not identify any actionable misstatements or omissions from the relevant offering documents.
 

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 18, 2019, Judge Edward J. Davila 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 Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and Item 303 of Regulation S-K against a medical technology company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives and directors, venture capital firms, and underwriters.  In re Restoration Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-03712 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants made materially misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company’s marketing function, hair transplant technology, product sales and revenue in offering documents in connection with the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”).  The Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, and granted plaintiff leave to amend to cure the complaint’s deficiencies.
 

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 September 26, 2019, Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the New York State Supreme Court, County of New York, Commercial Division, dismissed a putative class action against a dental products and services company and certain of its executives and directors asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  In re Densply Sirona, Inc. S’holders Litig., No. 155393/2018 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty., Sept. 26, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made material misrepresentations in a registration statement filed with the SEC in connection with a merger.  The crux of plaintiffs’ allegations was that the registration statement failed to disclose material information about an alleged “anticompetitive scheme” to control supply and distribution of the company’s products.  The Court held that, even though New York’s heightened pleading standard for fraud claims did not apply in the case at bar, the alleged misstatements were non-actionable statements of opinion or puffery or were not misleading when made.

 

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 30, 2019, Judge Loretta A. Preska of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed federal securities claims brought against a Japanese investment advisor and asset manager (the “Company”), its parent, and its former CEO.  Alfandary, et al. v. Nikko Asset Management, et al., 17-cv-05137 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019).  Plaintiffs, former senior executives of the Company or one of its subsidiaries, alleged that defendants engaged in a scheme to devalue plaintiffs’ stock acquisition rights (“SARs”) and to force them to sell their SARs back to the Company at the artificially deflated price, in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Court dismissed the Exchange Act claims finding that most plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a sale, and that all plaintiffs failed to allege reliance or loss causation.

On September 23, 2019, Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied class certification in a securities fraud action brought against a biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and several of its current and former officers and directors, and granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in connection with plaintiff’s individual claim.  Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A. No. 16-11745-DJC (D. Mass. Sept. 23, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that the Company misled investors about the number of entities that manufactured its FDA-approved drug and that its stock price declined when it revealed that it only had a single manufacturer, which was experiencing issues that affected the drug’s availability for sale.  The Court declined to certify the putative class, finding that plaintiff was an inadequate representative because the timing of his stock purchases made his claims atypical from those of the proposed class.  As to his individual claim, the Court granted defendants’ judgment on the pleadings, finding that plaintiff could not plead loss causation because the Company’s disclosures about the single manufacturer pre-dated the alleged stock drop by six months, and finding that plaintiff could not plead reliance because plaintiff purchased his shares two months after the curative disclosures.

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.