On August 10, 2026, Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a food safety company (the “Company”), its then-President and CEO, and its then-CFO (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund, et al. v. Neogen Corporation, et al., No. 1:25-cv-802 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2026).

On August 14, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against an animal health products company and several of its officers and directors that alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., —F.4th—, 2026 WL 2357739 (7th Cir. Aug. 2026).

On August 27, 2026, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a fitness company (the “Company”), its former CEO, and two other officers (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  Robeco Capital Growth Funds SICAV – Robeco Global Consumer Trends v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-09582 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2026).

On August 19, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a biopharmaceutical company and its CEO.  In re Apellis Pharms., Inc. Sec. Litig., —F.4th—, 2026 WL 2425924 (1st Cir. Aug. 19, 2026).

On August 11, 2026, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a digital technology services company (the “Company”), and four of its current and former officers (the “Individual Defendants”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Sarria v. TELUS International (CDA) Inc., No. 25 Civ. 889 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2026).

On August 7, 2026, Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against three executives of a healthcare services company (the “Company”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Skrypski v. Sampson, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00306 (D. Colo. Aug. 7, 2026).

On July 23, 2026, Judge Susan M. Brnovich of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against a semiconductor manufacturer (the “Company”) and its CEO and CFO (“Individual Defendants” and, together, “Defendants”), asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  Jeffery S. Lew, et al. v. ON Semiconductor Corporation, et al., No. CV-24-00594-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. July 23, 2026).

On July 28, 2026, Judge Robert Kirsch of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey 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 pharmaceutical company, its former CEO, and its Executive Vice President of Product Development.  In re Novo Nordisk A/S Sec. Litig., No. CV 25-713 (RK) (JBD), 2026 WL 2168296 (D.N.J. July 28, 2026). 

On June 29, 2026, Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and certain of its directors and officers, as well as the underwriters of its initial public offering, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Nopphol Buathongsri v. Zenas Biopharma, Inc., et al., No. 25-10988 (D. Mass. June 29, 2026).

On June 5, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed in part a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing a putative securities fraud class action against a consumer robotics company (the “Company”) and certain former and current executives (the “Individual Defendants”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Premca Extra Income Fund LP v. Angle, et al., No. 25-1192 (1st Cir. June 5, 2026).

On May 7, 2026, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed federal securities claims against a large cryptocurrency exchange (the “Company”) and its CEO (collectively, “Defendants”) and compelled the remaining claims to arbitration.  Joel Heabeart, et al., v. Coinbase, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-9197-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2026).  

On April 30, 2026, Judge Brett H. Ludwig of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against an energy products company (the “Company”), and its CEO and CFO (the “Individual Defendants”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Tampa Bay v. Generac Holdings Inc., et al., No. 22-cv-1436 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 30, 2026). 

On May 19, 2026, Judge Rita F. Lin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a voice-recognition technology company (the “Company”), and its CEO and CFO (the “Individual Defendants”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  St. John Family Trust, et al. v. SoundHound AI, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02915 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2026).

On May 28, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act against a clothing retailer and certain of its officers.  Smith v. Gap, Inc., —F.4th—, 2026 WL 1502033 (2d Cir. May 28, 2026).

On May 29, 2026, Judge Edward S. Kiel of the United States District Cout for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against a telecommunications provider (the “Company”) and several of its officers (collectively, the “Defendants”) asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v. Verizon Comms., Inc., No. 23-cv-05218-ESK-AMD (D.N.J. May 29, 2026).

On February 11, 2026, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss with prejudice a proposed securities class action against a solar energy company (the “Company”) and its former CEO and CFO (collectively, the “Defendants”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Menon v. Maxeon Solar Techs., Ltd., No. 24-cv-03869-EMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2026).  

On February 10, 2026, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted a motion to dismiss a proposed securities class action against a vehicle and bicycle components manufacturer (the “Company”) and several of its current and former officers (collectively, the “Defendants”), alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  Marselis v. Fox Factory Holding Corp., No. 1:24-CV-00747-TWT (N.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2026).

On February 5, 2026, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against a company that operates mobile content platforms in China, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the company’s initial and secondary public offerings (the “IPO” and “SPO”). In re Qutoutiao, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2026 WL 309234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2026).

On January 21, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio of a putative securities class action against a financial services company (the “Company”) and three of its officers (collectively, the “Defendants”).  Newtyn Partners, LP v. Alliance Data Sys. Corp., No. 25-3313 (6th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026). 

On January 22, 2026, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by an electric automobile company (the “Company”) and several of its officers (together, the “Defendants”) in a securities class action alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Ind. Pub. Ret. Sys. v. Rivian Auto., Inc., No. 2:24-cv-4566-CBM-JPR (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2026). 

On January 16, 2026, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York largely denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act against a manufacturer of dental products and certain of its executives.  In re Dentsply Sirona, Inc. Sec. Litig., ––F. Supp. 3d––, 2026 WL 124581 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2026).

On January 12, 2026, Judge Robert Pitman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a cybersecurity company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives (the “Individual Defendants”) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In re Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 24-cv-00857-RP (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2026).  

On November 20, 2025, Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against a social media platform (the “Company”) and its chief executive officer (the “CEO” and, collectively, “Defendants”) under Sections 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5. Hollingsworth v. Nextdoor Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 5:24-cv-1213-EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025).

On November 19, 2025, Judge John H. Chun of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington pared the allegations in a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a global coffee retailer and certain of its current and former executives. Garbaccio v. Starbucks Corp., ––F. Supp. 3d––, 2025 WL 3228275 (W.D. Wash. 2025).

On September 30, 2025, Judge Steven D. Grimberg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia substantially denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action arising out of the spinoff of a uniform-rental and workplace supplies company (the “Company”) from its former parent (the “Parent”).  Plumbers, Pipefitters & Apprentices Loc. No. 112 Pension Fund v. Vestis Corp., No. 1:24-cv-02175-SDG (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2025).  

On October 6, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a Spanish construction company, its former CEO, and the underwriters of its initial public offering of American Depository Shares (“ADSs”).  Sherman v. Abengoa, S.A., ––F.4th––, 2025 WL 2825369 (2d Cir. 2025).  

On September 12, 2025, Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied a motion to dismiss a proposed securities class action against a software company (the “Company”).  Sohovich v. Avalara, Inc., No. C22-1580 MJP (W.D. Wash. Sept. 12, 2025).  

On September 15, 2025, Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a semiconductor manufacturer (the “Company”) and its CEO and CFO (the “Executives” and, collectively, the “Defendants”).  In re STMicroelectronics N.V. Sec. Litig., 24 Civ. 6370 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2025).

On September 16, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of seven coordinated putative class actions asserting insider trading claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against certain hedge fund counterparties in connection with trading activity surrounding the hedge fund’s collapse.  In re Archegos 20A Litig.,—F.4th—, 2025 WL 2652262 (2d Cir. 2025). 

On August 20, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reinstated a class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a reinsurance company and certain of its executives.  In re Maiden Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig., —F.4th—, 2025 WL 2406864 (3d Cir. 2025).

On August 20, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  Sneed v. Talphera, Inc., —F.4th—, 2025 WL 2406424 (9th Cir. 2025).

On July 29, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a biotechnology company and its CEO.  In re Ocugen, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2025 WL 2146836 (E.D. Pa. July 29, 2025).

On July 9, 2025, Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California largely declined to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a clothing company and certain of its executives.  Retail Wholesale Dept. Store Union Loc. 338 Ret. Fund v. Stitch Fix, Inc., —F. Supp. 3d—, 2025 WL 1900722 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2025).

On June 10, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against a real estate syndicator, one of its executives, and investment funds managed by the syndicator.  Pino v. Cardone Cap., LLC, —F.4th—, 2025 WL 1642422 (9th Cir. 2025).

On April 28, 2025, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative securities fraud class action asserting claims against a solar panel manufacturer (the “Company”) and several of its executives under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5. Menon v. Maxeon Solar Techs., Ltd., et al., No. 24-cv-03869-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2025).

On April 10, 2025, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of a software company (the “Company”) in a purported class action alleging that the Company violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  Sundaram v. Freshworks Inc., No. 22-cv-06750-CRB, 2025 WL 1083168 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2025).  

On April 8, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to amend a class action complaint against a quantum computing company (the “Company”) and the special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”) that acquired it alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5.  DeFeo et al. v. IonQ, Inc., No. 24-1709 (4th Cir. Apr. 8, 2025). 

On March 24, 2025, Judge Rita F. Lin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a technology company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers.  Ami-Government Emps. Provident Fund Mgmt. Co. LTD., et al., v. Alphabet Inc., et al., No. 23-cv-01186-RFL (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2025).  

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

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

On March 19, 2025, Judge Charles E. Fleming of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 against a medical services company, certain of its executives, the underwriters in its initial and secondary public offerings, and certain private equity firms alleged to have sold stock in those offerings.