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

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

On February 4, 2022, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion for class certification in a putative class action against a multinational consumer electronics, software, and online services company (the “Company”) and two of its executives alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).  In re Apple Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 4:19-cv-2033-TGR (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022).  Plaintiff, who sought to represent purchasers of the Company’s publicly traded securities, alleged that in late 2018, the Company made misrepresentations about the state of its business in China, the Company’s most important growth market at the time, which caused the Company’s stock price to fall.  After granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a decision covered here, the Court granted class certification except as to the inclusion of option holders in the class, finding that the option holders’ damages could not be calculated on a classwide basis with the remaining stockholders.

On January 14, 2022, Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, against a lithium battery development company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives (collectively, “defendants”).  In re Quantumscape Securities Class Action Litigation, No. 3:21-cv-00058-WHO (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2022).  The Company’s “solid-state” battery is an aspiring competitor to conventional lithium-ion batteries for use in electric vehicles.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the Complaint was adequately plead with the exception of one of the challenged statements that it dismissed.

On January 7, 2022, a split panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against the current and former officers and directors (the “Defendants”) of a major aerospace company (the “Company”).  Seafarers Pension Plan v. Bradway, No. 20-2244, 2022 WL 70841 (7th Cir. Jan. 7, 2022).  Relying on a bylaw that gave the Company the right to insist that any derivative actions be filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Defendants obtained a forum non conveniens dismissal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the Company’s bylaw could not be applied to Section 14(a) claims, which are subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.

On January 7, 2022, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a putative class action against a Japanese manufacturer of electronic and energy products and services (the “Company”) alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).  Stoyas v. Toshiba Corp., No. 2:15-CV-04194 DDP-JC (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2022).  Plaintiffs, purchasers of the Company’s unsponsored American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”), alleged the Company concealed its deliberate use of improper accounting over a period of at least six years to inflate its pre-tax profits by more than $2.6 billion and conceal at least $1.3 billion in impairment losses at its U.S. nuclear business.  In a previous decision in the matter covered here, the Ninth Circuit held that a purchaser of unsponsored ADRs may maintain a cause of action under the Exchange Act so long as the purchaser incurred “irrevocable liability” within the United States to take and pay for a security.  After declining to dismiss an amended complaint in a decision covered here, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, finding that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the typicality requirement for class certification under Rule 23(a) because, unlike the members of the proposed class, plaintiffs acquired the Company’s securities in Japan.

On December 20, 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed a putative class action against a public utility company and certain of its executives under the Securities Exchange Act.  Nickerson v. Am. Elec. Power Co., No. 2:20-cv-4243 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made various statements regarding prospective energy legislation in Ohio which were misleading because they omitted that the company was actively involved in an alleged lobbying scheme to create that legislation.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any actionable misrepresentations.

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

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

On December 30, 2021, the Administrative Judge for the civil branch of the New York Supreme Court, New York County, issued an administrative order concerning actions filed in New York County pursuant to the federal Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”).  The order requires that all such actions that are currently pending or which may be commenced in the future in New York County shall be assigned to Justice Andrew Borrok, a justice of the Commercial Division.

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

On December 8, 2021, Judge Paul A. Crotty of the United States District Court for Southern District of New York granted a motion for class certification in a securities fraud class action against a global financial institution (the “Company”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In re Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 10-3461 (PAC) (Dec. 8, 2021).  This is the third time the District Court has granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in this case, following several decisions by the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court.

On December 14, 2021, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss claims brought under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“the Securities Act”) against a technology company (“the Company”), its controlling shareholder, and several of the Company’s and the controlling shareholder’s officers and directors.  Costanzo v. DXC Tech. Co., N.D. Cal., No. 19-cv-05794 (Dec. 14, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants made false and misleading statements, in the Company’s prospectus and registration statement (the “Registration Statement”), regarding expected budget cuts in light of an alleged internal goal at the Company to cut more than double the disclosed amount.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) without leave to amend, holding that plaintiffs’ addition of allegations of purported statements by confidential witnesses were insufficient to overcome the deficiencies in their pleadings.

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

On December 8, 2021, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed, with prejudice, a suit against a Canadian cannabis manufacturer (the “Company”), alleging that the Company failed to disclose material information about its facilities in Colombia and its transactions with other companies in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In re Pharmacielo Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 20-2182-PSG (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2021).  Plaintiffs—whose complaint was once dismissed—amended their complaint to bolster their allegations based on an assortment of Company statements regarding its facilities and expansion plans that plaintiffs alleged were designed to artificially inflate the Company’s stock price.  The Court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to plead falsity or materiality and did so with prejudice because any amendments would be futile based on their “failed attempt to remedy” the deficiencies of the prior complaint.

On December 2, 2021, Judge Cormac J. Carney of the United Stated District Court for the Central District of California denied, in substantial part, a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against an electric truck manufacturer (the “Company”) for allegedly misleading investors by overhyping its production capabilities and its prospects for winning a multibillion-dollar contract to revamp the U.S. Postal Service’s (“USPS”) delivery fleet in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Farrar v. Workhorse Grp., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-02072 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2021).   Plaintiff alleged the Company made false and misleading statements in 2020 and early 2021 about the viability of the Company’s bid for the USPS contract and the Company’s “backlog” of customer orders.  Plaintiff also alleged the Company made misrepresentations regarding its use of Payroll Protection Program (“PPP”) funds provided by the federal government during the COVID-19 pandemic.  The Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss on all but the PPP claims.

On November 24, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an internet company and one of its directors.  Altimeo Asset Mgmt. v. Qihoo 360 Tech. Co. Ltd., —F.4th—, 2021 WL 5499455 (2d Cir. 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company, which was headquartered in China and had previously had depository shares listed in the United States, made misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the shareholder buyout that took the company private by failing to disclose the company’s alleged intent to relist in China.  The district court dismissed the action but the Second Circuit vacated that dismissal, holding that plaintiffs adequately alleged facts from which an inference could be drawn that the company “must have been planning to relist [in China] at the time of the shareholder vote.”  Id. at *1.

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

On November 15, 2021, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed a derivative suit against a company that provides hardware, software, and services for wireless technology (the “Company”), alleging the Company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breached its fiduciary duty by allegedly allowing “unlawful and discriminatory practices to proliferate at the Company.”  Kiger v. Mollenkopf, No. 21-409-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 15, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made misrepresentations in 2019 and 2020 proxy statements about its commitment to diversify its board of directors (the “Board”).  The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to plead an actionable misstatement or omission and for failure to plead demand futility.

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

On October 27, 2021, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a putative class action against a major financial services company (the “Company”) alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Crago v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., No. 16-CV-03938-RS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company stated that it adhered to the duty of “best execution” without disclosing key information about an agreement (the “Agreement”) to route most of its customers' retail trade orders to a particular vendor (the “Vendor”) without verifying that the Vendor was providing best execution.  The Court previously dismissed an earlier complaint in this action, in a decision that was covered here.  After declining to dismiss an amended complaint, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, finding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a presumption of reliance and that individualized proof of reliance was therefore required.  This defeated the commonality requirements of Rule 23(a).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On September 21, 2021, Judge Michael A. Shipp of the District of New Jersey overruled an objection to a special master’s report and recommendation to deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against an accounting firm (the “Firm”).  In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals Intl., Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-7658 (MAS) (LHG) (D. N.J. Sept. 21, 2021).  We previously covered the district court’s decision denying a motion to dismiss by other defendants in this action.  The Firm is the only defendant left in a purported class action lawsuit related to a pharmaceutical company’s public offering in 2015.  The Court agreed with the special master’s findings, among other things, that plaintiff was not required to plead damages for a Section 11 claim at the pleading stage.

On September 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit, in a split decision, held that plaintiff—a shareholder who allegedly purchased shares through a direct listing by a technology company (the “Company”)—had standing to bring claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  Fiyyaz Pirani v. Slack Technologies, Inc., et al, No. 20-16419 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2021).  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying in part a motion to dismiss securities fraud claims.  The Company challenged plaintiff’s standing to sue under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act for failure to prove his shares were registered under the alleged misleading registration statement.  The Court held that plaintiff had standing to bring Securities Act claims because, whether registered or unregistered, his shares could not have been purchased without the issuance of the Company’s registration statement.  The Court concluded that the shares purchased by plaintiff were governed by Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act and affirmed the district court’s partial denial of the Company’s motion to dismiss.

On September 13, 2021, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative class action against a cybersecurity company (the “Company”) and its CEO for violations of Section 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In re Finjan Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-04289 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2021).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants made material misrepresentations about the value of the Company in connection with the sale of the Company through a tender offer (the “Merger”) and that the CEO was motivated by his desire to retain his position at the Company.  The Court dismissed the claims, holding that (i) the sales process indicated that the offer price reflected the market value of the Company’s stock, and (ii) plaintiff failed to present particularized evidence that the CEO had a motive to mislead shareholders.

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

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

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

On September 2, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the decision by a district court to permit plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint, on behalf of a putative class, against a bank (the “Company”) and certain of its former officers, its underwriters, and its independent auditors, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Southeastern Penn. Trans. Authority v. Orrstown Financial, No. 20-2829 (3d Cir. Sept. 2, 2021).  Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint was filed after the applicable repose period had expired, and after certain defendants had successfully moved for dismissal.  Defendants argued the relation back doctrine under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Procedure—which allows an amended pleading under certain circumstances to be treated as if filed on the date of an initial pleading despite any applicable statute of limitations—should not similarly apply against the statute of repose, which bars claims after a certain period of time.  The Third Circuit held the district court did not err in granting plaintiffs leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2), because the relation back doctrine was not in conflict with the statute of repose, and because defendants had not yet had a vested substantive right to repose as the action was still ongoing and plaintiffs sought only to amend to reassert claims they originally brought against the same parties.

On August 30, 2021, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against a cannabis company (“Company”), its senior secured lender (“Financing Company”), and certain executives at both companies.  In re iAnthus Capital Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:20-cv-03135 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2021).  Plaintiffs, in consolidated purported class actions and an individual action brought by a shareholder, alleged the Company failed to disclose the nature of its relationship with the Financing Company, which allegedly obtained approximately half of the equity of the Company after the Company defaulted on its loan.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended class action complaint (“Amended Complaint”), holding that plaintiffs failed to allege their transactions with the Company satisfied the jurisdictional limitations of the Exchange Act established by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 267 (2010).  The Court permitted plaintiffs to move for leave to further amend.

On August 17, 2021 and August 20, 2021, a purported shareholder of certain special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”) filed three derivative lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting that the SPACs are investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940, because proceeds from their initial public offerings are invested in short-term treasuries and qualifying money market funds.  Assad v. Pershing Square Tontine Holdings, Ltd., No. 21-cv-6907 (S.D.N.Y Aug. 17, 2021); Assad v. E.Merge Technology Acquisition Corp., No. 21-cv-7072 (S.D.N.Y Aug. 20, 2021); Assad v. GO Acquisition Corp., No. 21-cv-7076 (S.D.N.Y Aug. 20, 2021).

On August 26, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded a district court order certifying a class of stockholders asserting securities fraud against a global financial institution (the “Company”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 because it was “unclear” as to whether the district court considered the generic nature of the Company’s alleged misrepresentations in its price impact inquiry in accordance with the legal standard recently clarified by the United States Supreme Court.  Arkansas Tchr. Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., No. 18-3667, 2021 WL 3776297 (2d Cir. Aug. 26, 2021).  The Second Circuit held that on remand, the district court should consider all record evidence relevant to price impact regardless of whether that evidence overlaps with materiality or any other merits issue, as instructed by the Supreme Court.

On August 25, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against a Danish bank (the “Company”) and certain of its former officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Plaintiffs alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the Company’s anti-money laundering (“AML”) controls and protocols.  Plumbers & Steamfitters Local v. Danske Bank, No. 20-3231 (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2021).  The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal for failure to allege an actionable misrepresentation or a scheme to defraud investors.

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

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

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

On July 28, 2021, Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a resort and casino operator (the “Company”) and its current and former officers alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Ferris v. Wynn Resorts Ltd., No. 18-CV-00479 (D. Nev. July 28, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made material misstatements and omissions concerning allegations that its CEO engaged in sexual misconduct.  The Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims relating to alleged misstatements made directly in response to a newspaper article and lawsuit concerning the CEO’s alleged misconduct, but granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the alleged misstatements that concerned the Company’s code of conduct, compliance with laws and regulations, and corporate culture.

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

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

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

On July 8, 2021, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action against a Chinese manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware (the “Company”) alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Boluka Garment Co. v. Canaan Inc., No. 20-cv-07139 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company failed to disclose material information regarding alleged related-party transactions in its registration statement.  The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because plaintiffs failed to allege loss causation and materiality.

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

On June 25, 2021, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denying summary judgment to defendants in a putative securities fraud class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against an automobile manufacturer and its wholly owned subsidiary. In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, —F.3d—, 2021 WL 2621171 (9th Cir. 2021) (“In re Volkswagen”).  Plaintiff alleged that, in connection with bonds issued through three private placements, defendants made omissions and affirmative misrepresentations related to the use of emissions “defeat devices” in their vehicles.  Defendants moved for summary judgment on the reliance element of plaintiff’s claims, but the district court denied the motion, reasoning that plaintiff’s claims were based primarily on defendants’ alleged omissions rather than affirmative misstatements, and a presumption of reliance therefore applied.  Considering the issue on interlocutory appeal, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.

On June 29, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a decision by the Southern District of Florida denying a class certification motion. Jacob Rensel, et al. v. Centra Tech, Inc., No. 20-10894 (11th Cir. 2021).  Plaintiffs, investors in a cryptocurrency digital products company (the “Company”), alleged in their amended complaint violations of Sections 12(a)(1) and 15(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, its co-founders, former executives, and celebrity promoters.  The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as untimely, and alternatively for failure to establish an administratively feasible method for class identification.  The Eleventh Circuit held that, on both issues, the district court abused its discretion.