On September 29, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a district court order dismissing a putative securities class action against a natural food and personal care company (the “Company”) and certain of its current and former executive officers. Gimpel v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., No. 23-7612 (2d Cir. Sept. 29, 2025).

On September 30, 2025, Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a fashion e-commerce company (the “Company”), its subsidiary, as well as certain of the Company’s executive officers (the “Individual Defendants”). In re Farfetch Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 23-cv-10982 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2025).

On August 29, 2025, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded in part a putative securities class action alleging that a financial technology company (the “Company”) concealed material intra-quarter financial information in its IPO registration statement in violation of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Sodha v. Golubowski, No. 24-1036 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025).

On September 10, 2025, Judge Julie S. Sneed of the Middle District of Florida denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action brought against an autonomous vehicle technology company (the “Company”) and its CEO.  Alms v. Luminar Technologies, Inc., et al., 6:23-cv-982-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2025).  

On July 15, 2025, Judge Cathy A. Bencivengo of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against an U.S.-based telecommunications company (“Telecom Company”), a Taiwanese microchip manufacturer (“Microchip Company”), and several of their executives (together, “Defendants”), that asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10(b).  Water Is. & Event-Driven Fund v. MaxLinear, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-1607-CAB-VET (S.D. Cal.).  

On May 19, 2025, Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed without prejudice a proposed securities fraud class action asserting claims against a social networking platform (the “Company”), certain of its executives, and the sponsor of a special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”) with which the Company merged under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9. Hollingsworth v. Nextdoor Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 5:24-cv-01213-EJD (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2025).