On January 12, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a district court order certifying a securities fraud class action brought by purchasers of common stock in The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman” or the “Company”).  Arkansas Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs, No. 16-250 (Jan. 12, 2018).  The district court certified the class, ruling that defendants failed to rebut the presumption of reliance first articulated in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) because defendants did not “conclusively” prove a “complete absence of price impact.”  On appeal, the Second Circuit ruled that, consistent with its precedent, defendants seeking to rebut the Basic presumption of reliance must do so by a preponderance of the evidence.  Because it was unclear if the district court applied a more demanding standard than preponderance of the evidence, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded it to consider the defendants’ evidence under the proper standard.

Read more

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

Read more

​On December 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a consolidated putative class action against Community Health Systems, Inc. (“Community”), its CEO, and CFO.  Norfolk Cty. Ret. Sys. et al. v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc. et al., No. 16-6059 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2017).  Plaintiffs—shareholders of Community—alleged that Community and certain of its officers had violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by fraudulently inflating Community’s share price through false and misleading statements regarding Community’s operating model.  Plaintiffs alleged that the value of Community’s shares fell immediately in April 2011 after a Community competitor, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, publicly disclosed in a civil complaint against Community expert analyses alleging that Community’s profits depended largely on Medicare fraud, and fell further in October 2011 after one of Community’s officers admitted to certain of Tenet’s allegations.  Judge Kevin H. Sharp of the United States District Court for the Middle Division of Tennessee dismissed the putative class action complaint, finding that while plaintiffs had sufficiently pled that defendants intentionally made misleading statements, they had not adequately alleged that the misleading statements had caused plaintiffs’ losses because the disclosures came in the form of Tenet’s complaint—and was therefore regarded by the market as mere “allegations” rather than truth.  The Sixth Circuit reversed.

Read more

On December 12, 2017, the New York Court of Appeals dismissed certain breach of contract claims brought by HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (“HSBC”) against Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc. (“Nomura”), in four separate actions related to Nomura’s role as a sponsor in residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) transactions.  Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2006-FM2, by HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n, solely in its capacity as Trustee, et al. v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc. (And Three Other Actions), No. 39 (N.Y. Dec. 12, 2017).  The Court of Appeals dismissed HSBC’s claims for general contract damages—based on alleged breaches of a “no untrue statement” provision contained in the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (“MLPA”)—for each transaction, finding that HSBC’s claims relate to the characteristics of the underlying mortgage loans, and are therefore subject to the contract’s provision mandating cure or loan repurchase as the sole remedy for breaches of mortgage loan-specific representations.

Read more

On December 5, 2017, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied class certification in a putative securities fraud class action against Finisar Corporation (“Finisar”), a technology company focused on fiber optic subsystems, and its current chairman/CEO and former CEO, in which plaintiffs alleged that defendants misled investors by denying that Finisar’s revenue growth was the result of inventory build-up by customers.  In re Finisar Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 5:11-cv-01252-EJD (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017).  In denying plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the Court ruled that defendants successfully rebutted the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance by demonstrating that defendants’ statements had no statistically significant impact on Finisar’s stock price.

Read more

On December 6, 2017, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a securities fraud lawsuit brought against DeVry Education Group, Inc. and several of its executives (“DeVry”), with leave to amend, because plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead that DeVry executives knowingly misrepresented the employment rates and placement statistics of DeVry University (“DVU”) graduates in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. DeVry Education Group, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 5198 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2017).  The Court held that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) requires plaintiffs to set forth “particularized factual allegations” that do more than show the “plausibility or reasonableness” of scienter allegations and that the complaint, which relied heavily on earlier lawsuits by regulators, failed to meet this standard.  The decision serves as a reminder that securities lawsuits often fail when they attempt to piggy-back on lawsuits filed by government regulators or other stakeholders.

Read more

On November 28, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439, a case addressing whether state courts have jurisdiction over class actions asserting exclusively claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”).  A high-level summary of the argument is below.

Read more

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

Read more

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

Read more

On November 6, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a class certification order in a case concerning claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) relating to the operation of alternative trading systems (so-called “dark pools”).  Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, No. 16-1912-cv, -- 3d. -- (2d Cir. Nov. 6, 2017).  Plaintiffs—three individuals who purchased American Depository Shares in Barclays PLC—asserted claims against Barclays PLC, its U.S. subsidiary Barclays Capital Inc., and three senior officers of the companies, based on allegedly misleading statements indicating that Barclays monitored its alternative trading system (known as Liquidity Cross or “LX”) to protect clients from high-frequency traders.  In affirming class certification based on the presumption of reliance in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), the Second Circuit held that direct evidence of price impact is not always required in order to demonstrate market efficiency.

Read more

On November 8, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision, held that not all deadlines for filing appeals are jurisdictional; instead, if a time limit on filing an appeal appears only in a court-made rule, and not in a statute, the limitation is a “claim-processing rule,” not a jurisdictional bar, and therefore can be waived or forfeited.  Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago, 583 U.S. —, 2017 WL 5160782 (2017).  On this basis, the Court vacated the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of petitioner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, remanding for further proceedings.

Read more

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

Read more

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

Read more

On October 19, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a summary order, affirmed dismissal of an action seeking disgorgement of alleged short-swing profits realized by Defendants Eminence Partners II, L.P. and related entities in connection with their sale of common stock in The Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. (“Men’s Wearhouse”) under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b).  Morrison v. Eminence Partners II, LP, No. 17-843 (2d Cir. Oct. 19, 2017).  The Second Circuit held that plaintiff lacked standing under Section 16(b) because his shares of Men’s Wearhouse stock were exchanged for shares in its parent company, Tailored Brands, Inc. (“Tailored Brands”), in a corporate reorganization that was completed before the lawsuit was filed.

Read more

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

Read more

Resolution of whether Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K creates an affirmative duty to disclose and a private right of enforcement under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 will have to wait.  On October 17, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States removed argument in Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System, et al., 583 U.S. __, 16-581 (Oct. 17, 2017), from its calendar and held further proceedings in abeyance.  Leidos is an appeal in a putative shareholder class action alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against government contractor Leidos, Inc. (“Leidos”).  See U.S. Supreme Court To Consider Registrant’s Liability For Non-Disclosure Under Item 303 Of Regulation S-K, Shearman & Sterling LLP Need to Know Litig. Newsletter (Apr. 4, 2017), http://www.lit-sl.shearman.com/us-supreme-court-to-consider-registrantrsquos-lia.  The Court granted certiorari on March 27, 2017, merits briefing was completed on October 2, 2017, and the Court had set oral argument for November 6, 2017.  In their October 6, 2017, joint motion noting an agreement in principle to settle, the parties stated that they were preparing settlement documentation and will ask the Court to reschedule argument for October Term 2018 if a final settlement is not approved by May 31, 2018.

Read more

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

Read more

​The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument on November 28, 2017 in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439, a case that is expected to resolve the issue of whether state courts continue to have jurisdiction over class actions asserting only claims under the federal Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”).  The case began in June 2014, when certain purported purchasers of Cyan’s common stock brought a securities class action in California state court against Cyan, certain officers and directors of Cyan, and the underwriters of its IPO, asserting claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.  Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) deprived the California state court of jurisdiction over a putative class action asserting only claims under the Securities Act.  Relying on an earlier decision by the California intermediate appellate court in Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, the trial court rejected defendants’ arguments.  After the California Court of Appeals denied defendants’ appeal without opinion and the California Supreme Court denied discretionary review, in May 2016, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.  In granting certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court seeks to resolve a split among lower courts as to whether SLUSA divests state courts of jurisdiction over class action cases that allege only claims under the Securities Act, as well as whether SLUSA created a right to remove such cases to federal court, even if concurrent state and federal jurisdiction survived SLUSA.

Read more

On September 22, 2017, United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice an amended consolidated putative class action complaint asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against Eros International Plc (“Eros”) and certain of its current and former executives.  In re Eros Int’l Sec. Litig., No. 15-cv-8956-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017).  The complaint alleged that defendants deceived investors by touting growth in the number of “registered users” of Eros’s video streaming service, many of whom could not actually use the service, and also by overstating the number of annual releases in its video library.  In dismissing the action, the Court found that plaintiffs’ own definition of an otherwise undefined term could not make a statement actionable when other definitions of those terms were equally plausible.

Read more

On October 2, 2017, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative securities fraud class action against Nimble Storage, Inc. (“Nimble”), a flash storage technology company, and several of its officers.  In re. Nimble Storage Secs. Litig., No. 15-cv-05803 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants misrepresented Nimble’s prospects and financial condition in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Court found that Nimble’s statements about growth were not misleading because they were accompanied by sales and profit data, which accurately reported the company’s condition to the public.

Read more

On September 28, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a judgment, entered after a bench trial by Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, awarding $806 million for claims brought under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and provisions of the D.C. and Virginia “blue sky” laws in connection with the sale of residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae).  Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency for Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Nomura Holding Am., Inc., —F.3d—, 2017 WL 4293322 (2d Cir. 2017).  The trial court found that the RMBS prospectus supplements falsely stated that the underlying loans had been originated generally in accordance with the mortgage originators’ loan underwriting guidelines.  In a 151-page opinion, the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Cote’s legal rulings and factual findings.  Many of the issues addressed in the opinion relate specifically to RMBS and the RMBS securitization process and are beyond the scope of this summary.  Several of the Second Circuit’s key holdings regarding the interpretation and application of the Securities Act may be of broader applicability and are highlighted below, although many such holdings also appear to have been informed to some degree by the specific context of the decision.

Read more

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

Read more

On September 12, 2017, United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed without prejudice a consolidated putative class action against Dynavax Technologies Corporation and certain of its officers.  In re Dynavax Securities Litigation, No. 4:16-cv-06690-YGR (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2017).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, by knowingly or recklessly disseminating false and misleading statements about Dynavax’s developments and efforts to earn FDA approval of its proprietary hepatitis B vaccine.  The Court dismissed the consolidated complaint without prejudice, finding that plaintiff had not met the heightened pleading standards for securities fraud under the PSLRA.

Read more

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

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

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

Read more

On August 24, 2017, Judge Alison J. Nathan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against hotel chain La Quinta Holdings, Inc. (“La Quinta”), certain of its officers and directors, and La Quinta’s majority shareholder.  Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. La Quinta Holdings, Inc. et al, No. 16-cv-3068  (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2017).  Plaintiff claimed that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, based on various alleged misstatements and omissions that allegedly hid from the public operational and other difficulties facing La Quinta, including at the time of La Quinta’s secondary public offerings in November 2014 and April 2015.  The Court dismissed the second amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice, holding that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a material misrepresentation or omission.

Read more

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

Read more

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

Read more

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

Read more

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

Read more

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

Read more

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

Read more

On July 28, 2017, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York denied a motion for reconsideration of an earlier decision declining to dismiss as untimely a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 4923 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2017).  In denying reconsideration, the Court held that the “discovery rule” adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (2010) in the context of claims brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) also applies to claims brought under the Securities Act.  Under the “discovery rule” adopted in Merck, the statute of limitations begins to run when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the securities law violation.  This is distinguished from “inquiry notice,” under which the statute of limitations begins to run when facts would lead a reasonably diligent plaintiff to investigate whether it has a claim.  The decision deepens a split in the Southern District of New York (and elsewhere) over the issue of whether Merck applies to claims under the Securities Act.  

Read more

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

Read more

On August 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a “short-swing” trading suit brought by a shareholder in Herbalife, Ltd., Hologic Inc., and Nuance Communications, Inc. (the “Companies”), against investment entities controlled by Carl C. Icahn (“Icahn” and the “Icahn Entities”), that sought disgorgement of certain consideration the Icahn Entities allegedly received in violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and regulations promulgated thereunder.  Olagues v. Icahn et al., No. 16‐1255‐cv (2d Cir. Aug. 3, 2017).  Plaintiff acknowledged that the Icahn Entities disgorged premiums on certain put options that were cancelled unexercised within six months of their sale, as required by Section 16(b), but alleged that the Icahn Entities should have also disgorged the “value” of alleged discounts that Icahn received on purchases of related call options.  In affirming the district court’s decision, the Second Circuit ruled that plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for additional disgorgement by the Icahn Entities.  

Read more

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

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

Read more

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

Read more

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

Read more

On July 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a part of a district court decision denying a plaintiff’s motion to amend a complaint to add securities fraud claims based on a contractual release of claims on the ground that “blanket releases” from compliance with federal securities laws were barred by the anti-waiver provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).  Pasternack v. Shrader, et al. No. 16-217 (2d Cir. July 13, 2017).  This provision provides that “[a]ny condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of [the Exchange Act] or any rule or regulation [promulgated] thereunder . . . shall be void.”  15 U.S.C. § 78cc(a).  

Read more

On July 7, 2017, in a decision making several significant rulings and clarifications, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated in part an order certifying classes asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) on the basis that the lower court had insufficiently considered whether individual determinations as to whether over-the-counter bond purchases were “domestic” would predominate over common issues of fact and law.  In re Petrobras Securities, -- 3d. -- (2d Cir. July 7, 2017).  The Court further clarified that, unlike the Third Circuit, the Second Circuit requires only that a class be “defined using objective criteria that establish a membership with definite boundaries” to meet the threshold ascertainability requirement under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that, in Exchange Act cases, plaintiffs may be able to avail themselves of the “fraud on the market” theory presumption of reliance even if they do not establish statistically significant price changes in response to relevant news, provided that the entirety of the plaintiffs’ analysis supports market efficiency.    

Read more

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

Read more

On June 21, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision dismissing a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against Vivint Solar, Inc. (“Vivint”), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its October 2014 initial public offering (“IPO”).  Stadnick v. Vivint Solar, Inc., No. 16-65 (2d Cir. June 21, 2017).  On appeal, plaintiff relied on the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194 (1st Cir. 1996), to argue that Vivint was obligated to disclose in its IPO prospectus and registration statement financial information for the quarter that ended the day before the IPO because, according to plaintiff, the company’s performance during that time constituted an “extreme departure” from past performance.  In affirming the district court’s dismissal, the court declined to follow Shaw, holding instead that the issue of whether Vivint had an obligation to disclose the information should be based on whether the allegedly omitted information would have “significantly altered the total mix of information made available” at the time of the offering.

Read more

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

Read more

On June 12, 2017, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed without prejudice a putative securities class action against Charles Schwab & Co. (“Schwab”) under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Crago v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 2017 WL 2540577 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2017).  Plaintiffs, Schwab customers who placed trades through Schwab, alleged that Schwab’s stated commitment to securing best execution for its clients was false and misleading in light of Schwab’s bulk order routing through UBS Securities LLC (“UBS”), as a result of which plaintiffs allegedly suffered harm because they lost the opportunity for price improvement.  The Court held that although plaintiffs had standing to pursue their claims, they had insufficiently alleged falsity, scienter, economic loss, loss causation and reliance, and granted leave to replead.

Read more

On June 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, held that “[f]ederal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction under [28 U.S.C.] § 1291 to review an order denying class certification (or, as here, an order striking class allegations) after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.”  Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. ___ (2017).  The Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision and held that a voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not constitute a “final decision,” as required to bring an appeal under § 1291.  Therefore, the Court found that the plaintiffs, after voluntarily dismissing their claims with prejudice, did not have a right to appeal the district court’s order striking their class action allegations.

Read more

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

Read more

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

Read more

On May 23, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a non-precedential opinion, affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities fraud class action against Amarin Plc., a biopharmaceutical corporation, and certain of its officers.  In re Amarin Corp. Plc. Sec. Litig., No. 16-2640 (3d Cir. May 23, 2017).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) by intentionally misrepresenting the risk that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) would require Amarin to complete an “outcomes study” in order to obtain approval of its drug Vascepa for the treatment of patients with elevated triglyceride levels.  In affirming the district court, the Third Circuit found that none of defendants’ statements identified in the complaint were misleading in the context in which they were made because reasonable investors understand there is “a continuous dialogue between the FDA and the proponent of a new drug.”