On August 2, 2018, Chief Judge Thomas A. Varlan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed in part a putative securities class action against KPMG, LLP asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendant KPMG, as independent auditor to Miller Energy Resources, Inc., allowed Miller Energy to file financial statements with the SEC that were not in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), generally accepted auditing standards (“GAAS”), and standards set by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”), because the statements overstated the value of Miller Energy’s Alaskan energy interests.  Cosby v. KPMG, LLP, No. 3:16-cv-121 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2018).  Of note, the Court held that while plaintiffs’ allegations stated a claim under Rule 10b-5(b), they did not support a claim for “scheme liability” under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) because KPMG’s claimed role in the scheme was too remote.

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 31, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. As discussed in our prior post, plaintiff’s claims were all based on the allegation that defendant violated its duty of best execution by routing customer trades—specifically, limit orders—to trading venues that were willing to pay the largest rebates to E*TRADE. Rayner v. E*TRADE Fin. Corp., --.3d--, 2018 WL 3625378 (2d Cir. 2018). The Second Circuit held that plaintiff’s claims were precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) because they alleged fraudulent misrepresentations even though framed as claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

On July 17, 2018, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class in a securities class action against Twitter, Inc. (the “Company”) and two of its officers.  In re Twitter Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-05314 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2018).  Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by making materially false and misleading statements regarding user growth and engagement,  resulting in a 15 percent stock drop when the Company later disclosed that user engagement was “slowing quite dramatically.”  The Court previously had granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On July 17, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a putative securities class action, which alleged that a technology company (the “Company”) and its current and former chief executive officers engaged in fraudulent accounting in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Japanese securities law. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Toshiba Corp., No. 16-56058 (9th Cir. July 17, 2018). In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit analyzed the second prong of the transaction test articulated in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010) and adopted the Second and Third Circuits’ “irrevocable liability” test, which evaluates where the purchasers incurred the liability to take and pay for securities, and where the seller incurred the liability to deliver the securities. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court so that plaintiffs could amend their complaint to try to meet this standard.

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 July 3, 2018, Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class in a securities fraud action against Tex-Mex restaurant chain El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors. Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings Inc. et al., No. 8:15-cv-01343 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2018).

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 19, 2018, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed a securities class action alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against BofI Holding, Inc. (“BofI” or “Company”), an online bank, and certain of its officers and directors. Mandalevy v. BofI Holding Inc. et al., No. 3:17-cv-00667 (S.D. Cal., June 19, 2018). The complaint’s allegations were based on public articles and a whistleblower complaint accusing the Company of making loans to “criminals and politically exposed persons” and announced regulatory activities. The Court dismissed the complaint, among other reasons, for failure to allege loss causation. Relying on the principles of the efficient market theory, the Court held that corrective disclosures generally cannot be based on already public information and that even information available only through Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests to regulators is considered to be publicly available.

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 Tuesday, June 19, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that allegations that parties had reached an agreement within the United States for the sale of foreign securities established a “domestic transaction” sufficient to bring related fraud claims within the scope of U.S. securities laws under Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.

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 12, 2018, a 4-1 majority of the New York Court of Appeals held that claims under New York’s Martin Act are not governed by the six-year statute of limitations generally applicable to common law fraud claims, but rather by the three-year limitations period applicable to actions to recover based on liabilities created by statute.

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 June 11, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the tolling rule first stated in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) cannot salvage otherwise-untimely successive class claims.  China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, No. 17-432, __ S. Ct. __, 2018 WL 2767565.  In American Pipe, the Court held that the timely filing of a class action tolls the applicable statute of limitations for all persons encompassed by the class complaint.  The issue presented in China Agritech was whether American Pipe tolling can salvage an untimely successive class claim.  The Sixth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit ruled that American Pipe tolling applied to successive class action lawsuits, while certain other circuits, including the First, Second, Fifth, and Eleventh, held that American Pipe tolling did not apply.  In China Agritech, the Court resolved the circuit split and unanimously held that, upon denial of class certification, a putative class member may only intervene as an individual plaintiff or commence an individual suit, but may not commence a new class action beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations.

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 May 10, 2018, the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of putative class actions against TD Ameritrade, Inc. and certain related entities and individuals, asserting violations of various state laws including breach of defendant’s uniform client agreement, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act.  Zola v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., No. 16-3016 (8th Cir. May 10, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to direct its retail clients’ securities orders to trading venues that offered the best price, speed of execution, and likelihood of execution; instead, it allegedly directed orders to venues that catered to high-frequency traders who also paid defendant rebates for order flow.  Slip op. at 3.  The Court held that the “best execution” allegations were effectively claims of misrepresentations or omissions in connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities and were therefore precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”).

Read more

In a March 29, 2018 decision, amended on May 9, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of claims against defendants Tower Research Capital LLC (a New York based high-frequency trading firm) and its founder under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) by five Korean citizens who traded Korea Exchange (“KRX”) futures contracts on the KRX “night market.”  Choi v. Tower Research Capital LLC, No. 17-648, 2018 WL 2168642 (2d Cir. 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants engaged in manipulative “spoofing” transactions on the KRX night market—which operated by matching after-hours orders in Korea with anonymous counterparties on CME Globex, an electronic trading platform on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.  The district court dismissed the action on the ground that the CEA did not apply extraterritorially, but the Second Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that plaintiffs’ allegations made it plausible that the trades were “domestic transactions” under Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), and so within the reach of the CEA, and further that plaintiffs stated a claim for unjust enrichment.

Read more

On May 8, 2018, Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted class certification in an action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act based on allegations that the medical device manufacturer Thoratec and certain of its officers misrepresented the performance of its primary product.  Cooper v. Thoratec Corp., 2018 WL 2117337 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements about the rate of thrombosis suffered by users of its product, first in 2011 and continuing after a New England Journal of Medicine study revealed in November 2013 that thrombosis rates had increased since the clinical trials (which caused Thoratec’s stock to drop by six percent).  After the company disclosed the impact of higher thrombosis rates in 2014, the stock lost a quarter of its value.

Read more

On Monday, April 30, 2018, Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a consolidated putative securities class action against financial services company Ocwen Financial Corporation (the “Company”) and two of its officers.  Carvelli et al. v. Ocwen Financial Corp. et al., No. 9:17-cv-80500 (S.D. Fla. April 30, 2018).  Plaintiffs—shareholders of the Company—alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding operational and technological deficiencies within the Company’s mortgage servicing software platform, causing losses to plaintiffs when the deficiencies were revealed and the Company’s stock declined.  The Court disagreed, finding that the statements in question were non-actionable puffery or opinion, forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements, or statements on their face not false, and therefore dismissed the action with prejudice.

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 20, 2018, Judge William H. Pauley III of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a class action against defendants GFI Group, Inc. (“GFI”) and certain executives of GFI, alleging securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  Gross v. GFI Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-09438 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants deceived shareholders by falsely representing in a press release that a takeover bid by CME Group (“CME”) was a “singular and unique” opportunity and implying that the CME deal was the best possible deal for GFI shareholders when it knew there were alternative potential bidders.  In fact, another bidder later waged a hostile takeover, which led GFI’s stock price to surge after plaintiffs sold their stock.  The Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that a proxy statement related to the proposed CME deal defeated plaintiffs’ ability to prove scienter.

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 April 17, 2018, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied class certification in an action asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of trust against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.  Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 1:14-cv-09764 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2018).  Plaintiff alleged that defendant disregarded contractual duties arising out of its role as trustee of two RMBS trusts by failing to protect RMBS Certificate holders and breached its common law duty of trust to avoid conflicts of interest by putting its own interests ahead of the beneficiaries’ and failing to take necessary action to the detriment of beneficiaries.  Adopting in its entirety Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), see Southern District Of New York Magistrate Judge Recommends Denial Of Class Certification In Action Against RMBS Trustee at https://www.lit-sl.shearman.com/southern-district-of-new-york-magistrate-judge-re, the Court denied class certification on the basis that individual questions affecting proposed class members predominated over common issues.

Read more

On April 10, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived and remanded to state court a putative class action brought against AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.  O’Donnell v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co., No. 17-1085, 2018 WL 1720808 (2d Cir. 2018).  Plaintiff, a holder of a variable deferred annuity policy from defendant, brought a putative class action against defendant in Connecticut state court alleging breach of contract based on defendant’s alleged failure to obtain prior written approval before implementing a “volatility management strategy” that affected the performance of the annuity.  Defendant removed the case to the United States District Court of Connecticut, where it successfully moved to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”).  The district court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the action to state court and granted defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the case as being precluded under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”).  The Second Circuit reversed, holding that a security holder’s passive retention of a security following an alleged misrepresentation of which the holder is unaware does not meet the requirement that an alleged misstatement be made “in connection with” the purchase or sale of a security under SLUSA, and instructed the district court to remand the action to Connecticut state court.

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 30, 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a class action complaint against Embraer S.A. (“Embraer” or the “Company”) and several of its officers, alleging securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  Employees Retirement System of the City of Providence, et al. v. Embraer S.A., et al., No. 16-cv-06277 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2018).  Plaintiff alleged that the Company made false or misleading statements about and/or failed to disclose violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).  The Court dismissed the claims, finding that the Company did not have a duty to disclose uncharged, unadjudicated wrongdoing and that the Company’s disclosures about the government investigation adequately addressed the risks that could result from a finding of unlawful conduct.
 

On Monday, March 26, 2018, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in an appeal that presents the question whether American Pipe tolling—which provides that the pendency of a class action generally tolls the statute of limitations for claims of individual members of the putative class—applies not just to subsequent individual actions but also to subsequent class actions.  Transcript, China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, No. 17-432 (U.S. argued Mar. 26, 2018).  Plaintiffs, alleged owners of shares in China Agritech, filed a putative securities fraud class action following the filing of two other similar class actions for which class certification had been denied.  There was no dispute that the claims of the individual named plaintiffs were timely under the tolling rule of American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974).  The district court, however, dismissed the class claims as time-barred, only to be later reversed by the Ninth Circuit.  The Circuit Courts of Appeals have reached varying conclusions regarding whether, or the circumstances in which, the filing of a putative but ultimately not certified class action will operate to toll subsequently-asserted class claims, thereby allowing for the seriatim filing of otherwise time-barred class actions in the hope that a class may eventually be certified.  The China Agritech case provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict.

Read more

On Tuesday, March 27, 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts announced a unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court that allows immediate appeals from final decisions issued in any action that has been consolidated with other actions for proceedings under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Hall v. Hall, --U.S.—, 2018 WL 1472897 (2018).  This decision provides important optionality for parties, including in securities actions (which are often consolidated under Rule 42(a)), to be able to appeal an adverse final decision while continuing to address pending cases within the consolidated proceeding.
​
Read more

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 22, 2018, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part class certification in a putative class action alleging breach of contract claims against Citibank, N.A.  Merryman et al. v. Citigroup Inc. et al., 15 Civ. 9185 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2018).  Plaintiffs, former holders of American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) in three separate companies, brought this putative class action on behalf of a proposed class who currently or previously held any of 35 separate ADRs for which defendant served as depositary bank.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendant breached the contracts governing these ADRs by converting cash distributions received from foreign issuers at one foreign exchange rate and then supposedly using a less favorable rate when remitting the proceeds to ADR holders and retaining the difference (the “spread”).  The Court granted class certification with respect to the securities previously owned by plaintiffs, but held that plaintiffs lacked class standing to bring claims on behalf of holders of other securities.

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 20, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Kagan, ruled that state courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate class actions brought under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and that such actions cannot be removed from state to federal court.  Cyan, Inc. et al. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund et al., 583 U.S. ___ (2018).  The Securities Act authorized both federal and state courts to exercise jurisdiction over private causes of action relating to securities offerings and barred removal of such suits from state to federal court.  In 1995, in order to stem perceived abuses of the class-action vehicle in securities litigation, Congress enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”).  The PSLRA amended the Securities Act by introducing procedural reforms for securities class actions in federal court.  When plaintiffs began filing securities class actions in state courts instead, to avoid the federal procedural standards, Congress passed the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”).  Cyan, Inc. (“Cyan”), a telecommunications company, and its officers and directors, argued that the SLUSA amendments gave federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over class actions brought under the Securities Act.  The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that those amendments did not divest state courts of concurrent jurisdiction over class actions pursuant to the Securities Act.  The Court also rejected the separate argument regarding removal of such actions, advanced by the U.S. Solicitor General, as amicus curiae, and held that SLUSA does not permit defendants to remove class actions alleging only Securities Act claims from state to federal court.

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 March 8, 2018, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed a consolidated class action alleging securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against Dollar General Corporation (“Dollar General”), and certain of its executives.  Iron Worker Local Union No. 405 Annuity Fund, et al. v. Dollar General Corporation, et al., No. 3:17-cv-00063 (M.D. Tenn., Mar. 8, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants misled investors about the negative impact reductions to government benefits, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) benefits, would have on Dollar General’s business.  The Court held, among other things, that defendants sufficiently disclosed the importance of SNAP recipients to Dollar General’s business, the impact of an earlier reduction in SNAP benefits did not render the impact of a later change to benefits foreseeable, and that risk factors accompanying optimistic projections rendered certain forward-looking statements inactionable.

Read more

On March 12, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a shareholder’s claims to recover on behalf of Dynegy, Inc. (“Dynegy”) alleged short-swing profits from insiders in violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Jordan v. Flexton, et al., No. 17-20346 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2018). Plaintiff alleged that defendants, Dynegy’s officers, received short-swing insider trading profits from a series of dispositions of equity securities that violated Section 16(b) because the dispositions occurred less than six months after they received the equity securities. Plaintiff maintained that the purchases were not exempt under SEC Rule 16b-3(e) because they were neither pre-approved nor automatic. The district court dismissed the action and held that the transactions were exempt under Rule 16b-3(e). On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the ground that plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that the dispositions were discretionary or were not pre-approved.

Read more

On March 2, 2018, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendants’ request for reconsideration of a motion to dismiss a putative class action brought 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. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2018).  Plaintiff had 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 Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In its previous July 19, 2017 order, the Court dismissed certain claims but found that plaintiff could rely on a presumption of reliance under Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972), because plaintiff primarily alleged omissions as opposed to misstatements.  Defendants asked the Court to reconsider that ruling in light of the Second Circuit’s November 2017 decision in Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. Nov. 6, 2017)—which held that the Affiliated Ute presumption does not apply when the only omission alleged is the omission of the truth that an affirmative misstatement misrepresented.  The Court did so, agreed with Waggoner, and dismissed plaintiff’s remaining claims for failure to adequately plead reliance.

Read more

On February 28, 2018, Judge Peter Sheridan of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted class certification in an action against Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. and certain of its executives.  Li V. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-07081 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2018), ECF No. 144.  Plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegations that Aeterna made false or misleading statements about the progress of certain clinical trials involving the drug Macrilen, a growth hormone stimulator intended to diagnose whether a person has adult growth hormone deficiency (“AGHD”). 

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 27, 2018, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative securities fraud action brought against Chinese mobile internet service provider NQ Mobile, Inc. (“NQ”) and its CEO and Vice President.  Finocchiaro, et al v. NQ Mobile Inc., et al., No. 1:15-cv-06385 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2018).  Plaintiffs—shareholders of NQ—alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making affirmative misstatements about NQ’s value and failing to disclose to investors certain material facts relating to NQ’s corporate acquisition strategy, allegedly causing plaintiffs to suffer losses when the truth was revealed and NQ’s stock dropped.  The Court held that the alleged affirmative misrepresentation was mere puffery which plaintiffs could not have reasonably relied upon and that the alleged material omissions were in fact properly disclosed.  Accordingly, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. 

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 February 12, 2018, Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Treehouse Foods, Inc. (“TreeHouse”) and certain TreeHouse executives.  Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al., 16 C 10632 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2018).  Plaintiff alleged that TreeHouse, a manufacturer of store brand food products for grocery stores, materially misrepresented that its acquisitions of Flagstone Foods and the “Private Brands” business of ConAgra Foods, Inc. were successful.  The Court denied the motion to dismiss, holding among other things that plaintiff adequately alleged that defendants made actionable misstatements.

Read more

On January 30, 2018, Judge John R. Tunheim of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted class certification in a consolidated securities fraud class action against Medtronic and certain of its officers and employees.  West Virginia Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-01686-JRT-FLN (D. Minn. Jan. 30, 2018).  Plaintiffs—institutional investors who purchased Medtronic stock during the proposed class period—allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by manipulating early clinical studies of INFUSE, an alternative to replacement bone-tissue graft, by knowingly concealing adverse side effects observed in clinical trials, and by failing to sufficiently disclose that it paid physician authors a total of $210 million to publish positive articles about INFUSE in medical journals.  Plaintiffs allege that Medtronic’s deception artificially inflated the company’s stock price, causing a large stock drop in August 2011, when the truth was revealed through a corrective disclosure.  Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all purchasers of Medtronic stock between September 8, 2010 and August 3, 2011.  The Court certified the class, but shortened the class period end date to June 3, 2011, which is the date of the initial corrective disclosure.

Read more

​On February 9, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of aiding and abetting claims against UBS AG, AIA LLC, and their affiliated entities and individuals.  SPV Osus Ltd. v. UBS AG, et al., No. 16-2173-cv (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2018).  Plaintiff alleged defendants aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”), by sponsoring and providing support for two European-based feeder funds despite being aware of fraudulent activity.  Plaintiff further alleged it suffered losses of approximately $2.9 billion when the scheme was uncovered.  The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to New York Supreme Court, where plaintiff had originally filed, and had granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court erred by:  (1) denying plaintiff’s motion to remand because the instant litigation was not “related to” the Madoff/BLMIS bankruptcies and thus the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) holding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants; and (3) holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead proximate cause.  The Second Circuit rejected plaintiff’s arguments and affirmed the dismissal of the action based on lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants and failure to plead proximate cause.

Read more

On January 31, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a per curiam decision a district court decision denying in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claims brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by investors in First Solar, Inc., one of the world’s largest producers of solar panels.  Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme et al. v. First Solar Inc., No. 15-17282 (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 2018).  After partially denying summary judgment, the district court certified for interlocutory appeal a question as to the correct test for loss causation under the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit.  In addressing this question, the Ninth Circuit resolved a perceived ambiguity between two lines of decisions in the Circuit by affirming the district court’s holding that a plaintiff can establish loss causation by proving that “the defendant misrepresented or omitted the very facts that were a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s economic loss” even if the alleged fraud was not itself disclosed to the market before the plaintiff suffered the loss.  In so doing, the Ninth Circuit rejected the defendants’ argument that “[s]ecurities fraud plaintiffs can recover only if the market learns of the defendants’ fraudulent practices” before the claimed loss.

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

In a January 10, 2018 ruling unsealed on January 19, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recommended denial of Royal Park Investments’ request for class certification in an action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”).  Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 14-CV-09764-KPF-SN (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2018).  Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of trust in connection with Wells Fargo’s role as trustee of two RMBS trusts, alleging that Wells Fargo disregarded contractual duties by failing to protect RMBS Certificateholders and breached its common law duty of trust to avoid conflicts of interest by putting its own interests ahead of the beneficiaries’ and failing to take necessary action to the detriment of beneficiaries.  Concluding that individual questions affecting proposed class members predominated over common issues, Magistrate Judge Netburn recommended that plaintiff’s motion be denied.

Read more

On December 29, 2017 and January 9, 2018, respectively, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit each affirmed district court dismissals of putative securities class actions asserting violations of various state laws based on securities brokerage firm defendants’ alleged violation of the “duty of best execution” in executing client trades.  Fleming v. Charles Schwab Corp., No. 16-15179 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2017); Lewis v. Scottrade, Inc., No. 16-3808 (8th Cir. Jan. 9, 2018).  In affirming the district courts’ dismissals of these clams, both the Ninth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit reasoned that the alleged “best execution” violations were, in substance, allegations of deceptive conduct “in connection with the purchase or sale of” a security and thus barred by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”).  

Read more