On March 8, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a trial court decision dismissing a putative securities class action brought by purchasers of crypto assets against an international crypto exchange company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), as well as various state securities laws (“Blue Sky” laws), and also seeking recission of the contracts they entered into with the Company, under Section 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”). Williams v. Binance, No. 22-972 (2d Cir. Mar. 8, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company unlawfully promoted, offered, and sold billions of dollars’ worth of crypto-assets without registering these as securities and without registering themselves as a securities exchange or broker-dealer. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Company’s motion to dismiss, holding that (1) plaintiffs’ claims constitute an impermissible extraterritorial application of securities law and (2) plaintiffs’ federal claims were untimely under the applicable statute of the limitations. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed on both counts and remanded for further proceedings.

On December 6, 2023, Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action brought against an operator of private schools in Western China.  Dagan Invs., LLC v. First High-Sch. Educ. Grp. Co., 2023 BL 442686, No. 22-cv-3831 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2023).  Plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class of U.S. investors, alleged that the Company violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making material misstatements and omissions about the likelihood and severity of impending Chinese government regulations impacting the private education sector.

On July 13, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims against a poultry producer and certain of its officers under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Hogan v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., —F.4th—, 2023 WL 4508545 (10th Cir. 2023).  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding its financial results, business operations, and a purported price-fixing scheme.  The district court dismissed plaintiff’s second amended complaint as barred by the Exchange Act’s statute of repose, but the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the statute of repose did not apply.

On June 22, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims seeking recovery on defaulted bonds issued by the Republic of Argentina.  Bainbridge Fund Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, —F.4th—, 2022 WL 2231401 (2d Cir. 2022).  Plaintiff held bonds issued by Argentina which went into default in 2001, but did not sue until 2016.  The Court held that plaintiff’s claims were time-barred under New York’s six-year statute of limitations for breach-of-contract claims.

On April 25, 2022, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed a putative securities class action alleging that a fintech company (the “Company”) misrepresented its internal control weaknesses and financial results in its prospectus and registration statement (collectively, the “Offering Materials”) in connection with its 2018 initial public offering (the “IPO”) of ADSs in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Yaroni v. Pintec Technology Holdings Limited et al., No. 20-cv-08062 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2022).  The Court held that the complaint failed to allege that defendants made misstatements and also that the claims based on certain statements were time-barred.  The Court dismissed the action with prejudice because “the problems with [p]laintiffs’ claims are substantive.”

On March 7, 2022, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York 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 coal mining company and certain of its executives.  In re Peabody Energy Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-8024 (PKC), slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2022), ECF No. 50.  Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations concerning its safety practices, a fire that took place at one of its mines, and its ability to subsequently reopen that mine and resume operations.  The Court held that the complaint adequately alleged misrepresentations and scienter with respect to the mine fire but dismissed the remaining challenged statements as non-actionable puffery, protected forward-looking statements, or statements of opinion.

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 June 21, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims under Sections 12(a)(1) and 15(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against the co-owners of a company (the “Company”) that sold cryptographic tokens in an initial coin offering to fund its nascent movie streaming platform.  Fedance v. Felton, No. 20-12222 (11th Cir. 2021).  Although plaintiffs brought the action after the one-year statute of limitations period had elapsed, they argued that the Company’s fraudulent concealment equitably tolled the limitations period.  The district court held that the claims were untimely because the doctrine of equitable tolling did not apply to claims brought under Sections 12(a)(1) and 15(a).  Although the Eleventh Circuit agreed that plaintiffs’ claims were untimely, the Court rejected the district court’s conclusion that equitable tolling is inapplicable to Section 12(a)(1) and 15(a) claims.  The Eleventh Circuit instead held that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that the Company’s fraudulent concealment prevented them from bringing claims within the limitations period.

On June 16, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reinstated a securities fraud action brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that had been dismissed as untimely.  Aly v. Valeant Pharm. Int’l Inc., –F.3d–, 2021 WL 2448108 (3d Cir. 2021).  The Third Circuit joined the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in holding that the doctrine of equitable tolling established by the United States Supreme Court  in American Pipe & Construction Company v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), applies to individual claims that are subject to a pending putative class action and are asserted in an opt-out case prior to a decision on class certification.

On October 21, 2020, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative securities class action against a large online cloud-based storage provider (the “Company”), certain of its officers and directors, certain of its controlling shareholders, and the underwriters of its IPO, for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K.  In re Dropbox Securities Litigation, No. 19-cv-06348 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the offering materials filed in connection with the Company’s IPO omitted to disclose the decelerating rate at which the Company was converting non-paying registered users into paying subscription users, which gave investors a false impression of the Company’s revenue growth.  The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because plaintiffs failed to allege the offering materials were false or misleading and because plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred.
 

On July 16, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit unanimously vacated the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division’s decision to grant class certification to plaintiffs bringing securities fraud claims against a national insurance provider (the “Company”), holding that the district court decision to exclude certain evidence at the class certification stage was based in part on a legal error.  Carpenters Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Allstate Corp., et al., No. 19-1830 (7th Cir. July 16, 2020).  The Court remanded to the district court for further proceedings, providing guidance as to what should be considered when applying Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement in the class certification process. 
 

On April 23, 2020, Judge Cormac J. Carney of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against a yoga instruction company, certain of its officers, and the underwriters for the company’s initial public offering.  In re YogaWorks, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV 18-10696, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020), ECF No. 70.  The Court had dismissed plaintiff’s prior complaint as time-barred under the Securities Act because plaintiff had alleged that the truth about purported misrepresentations regarding the company’s financial metrics had been disclosed no later than the publication of the company’s disclosures for the second quarter of 2017 (the “Q2 2017 Disclosures”), which occurred more than one year before the suit was filed.  Although plaintiff’s amended complaint removed references to those Q2 2017 Disclosures, the Court held that this did not cure the statute of limitations issue and dismissed the action with prejudice.
 

On March 31, 2020, Judge Victor A. Bolden of the District of Connecticut dismissed a putative securities class action against a provider of private label credit cards (the “Company”), certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters in connection with a notes offering.  In re Synchrony Financial Sec. Litig., No. 3:18-cv-1818 (VAB) (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) by all defendants, as well as Section 15 of the Securities Act against the individual defendants.  Plaintiffs also alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by the Company and certain of the individual defendants.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice.
 

On February 5, 2020, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sustained some but not all claims in a putative class action asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  Twin Master Fund, Ltd. v. Akorn, Inc., No. 19-CV-3648 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 05, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company knowingly made false statements and omissions regarding the company’s compliance with FDA regulations governing data integrity and manufacturing in public statements and filings and in a publicly filed merger agreement.  The Court held that plaintiffs had adequately alleged misrepresentations as to a number of statements, but dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with respect to certain others.

On September 14, 2018, United States District Court Judge Michael Shipp of the District of New Jersey declined to dismiss as untimely plaintiffs’ claim against a major pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives under Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund Ltd v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., No. 1707552 (D.N.J. Sep’t 14, 2018).  In denying defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court deepened a split among courts over whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) extends the time to file a Section 18 claim to two years of when the violation is discovered.

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

Read more.

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

Read more.

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

Read more

​On 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 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 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 May 23, 2017, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied in part and granted in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against Inovalon Holdings, Inc. (“Inovalon”), six of Inovalon’s officers and directors (the “Individual Defendants”), and nine underwriters of Inovalon’s IPO (the “Underwriter Defendants”).  Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., No. 16-CV-4923 (VM).  Plaintiffs asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) on the basis of alleged misstatements in Inovalon’s IPO registration statement and prospectus.  The Court dismissed the Section 12 claims against the Individual Defendants and found the remaining claims to be adequately pleaded.

Read more

On February 27, 2017, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Wal-Mart de México SAB de CV (“Wal-Mex”) American Depositary Shares (“ADRs”) against Wal-Mex, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”), and two Wal-Mex executives.  Fogel v. Wal-Mart de México Sab de CV, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2017 WL 751155 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).  The complaint alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on allegations that Wal-Mex’s annual reports for 2004 through 2011 failed to disclose an alleged bribery scheme.  In a detailed and thorough opinion that provides an overview of the state of Rule 10b-5 jurisprudence in the Second Circuit, the Court held that many of plaintiff’s claims were time barred, and that plaintiff failed to state a claim with respect to those claims that were timely.

Read more

On July 1, 2016, Judge William Pauley III of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action concerning Virtus Investment Partners, the parent of an investment advisory company that managed and provided advice to mutual funds.  See Youngers v. Virtus Inv. Partners Inc., No. 15-cv-8262 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2016).  Plaintiffs purported to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of investors who purchased shares in certain Virtus mutual funds between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014.  Plaintiffs’ allegations concerned statements in the funds’ registration statement that the above-market performance of the funds using a particular investment strategy (the “AlphaSector” strategy) was calculated based on live trading since 2001.  Plaintiffs alleged that the pre-2008 returns were actually generated using only back-testing, as the algorithm was not developed until 2008.  

Read more