On March 2, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities class action against a company that manufactures cancer drugs (the “Company”), its president and CEO, and its senior vice president and CFO, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton v. Macrogenics, Inc., No. 21-2238 (4th Cir. Mar. 2, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made materially misleading statements or omissions concerning a clinical trial drug, which negatively affected the Company’s stock price. The Court affirmed the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege any actionable misrepresentations or omissions that would give rise to a duty to disclose, and that most of defendants’ alleged statements also were immunized from suit.

On March 1, 2023, Judge Jesse Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and its executives (the “Individual Defendants”), alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), and SEC Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9. In Re: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. CVR Securities Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-08255 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company secretly “slow rolled” the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval process for certain medications and made misrepresentations about its efforts to obtain timely FDA approval. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company did so to avoid having to pay $6.4 billion to the holders of Contingent Value Right securities (“CVRs”), which would expire and be worthless if the drugs were not approved by particular deadlines (the “CVR Deadlines”). The Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety but granted leave for plaintiffs to replead their claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On February 24, 2023, Judge Esther Salas of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a Beijing-based education company (the “Company”) and its CEO and CFO (the “Individual Defendants”). The lawsuit alleged that the Company misled investors about its student enrollment figures in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Wu v. GSX Techedu Inc., No. 20-cv-04457, 2023 WL 2207422 (D.N.J. Feb. 24, 2023). Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the Company artificially inflated its enrollment figures by creating fake student accounts. In dismissing the action, the Court discounted the import of several purported confidential witness statements, demonstrating the rigor courts apply to such allegations, and held that the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter.

On March 14, 2023, Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed without prejudice a putative class action against an automobile manufacturer, its U.S. based based subsidiary, and certain of its officers, asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re Volkswagen AG Sec. Litig., 2023 WL 2505539 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that the company’s U.S. subsidiary misrepresented that the company would change its name to one suggesting an increased focus on electric vehicles, which the company later indicated had been intended as an April Fool’s joke. The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged falsity and scienter but failed to show that the challenged statements were sufficiently connected to the securities at issue to be actionable.

On March 13, 2023, Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a derivative action brought on behalf of an online flower company against certain of its beneficial owners, seeking disgorgement of profits from alleged short-swing transactions under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Packer ex rel. 1-800 Flowers.com, Inc. v. Raging Capital Mgmt., LLC,—F. Supp. 3d—, 2023 WL 2484442 (E.D.N.Y. 2023). The Court held that, because plaintiff failed to allege a concrete harm that the company suffered from the transactions in question, plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the claim.

On March 9, 2023, a panel of the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a 2021 trial court decision dismissing a putative securities class action against a technology company (the “Company”), certain of its officers and directors and its underwriters for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). Volonte v. Domo, Inc., No. 20210399-CA (Mar. 9, 2023). The unanimous decision affirmed the dismissal on the basis of a federal forum provision (“FFP”) in the Company’s bylaws; such provisions require that claims under the Securities Act of 1933 be filed in federal court as opposed to state court. Among other points, the decision emphasized the underwriters’ right to invoke the FFP and held that the matter was governed by Delaware, not Utah, law.

On February 14, 2023, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action alleging that a hearing aid company (the “Company”) and its officers, directors, and IPO underwriters falsely or misleadingly inflated the Company’s revenue and growth opportunities and allegedly downplayed an insurance audit, leading to a Department of Justice investigation for insurance fraud.  In re Eargo, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 21-cv-08597 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against all defendants, and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and its officers.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead falsity and scienter.

On February 16, 2023, Judge Josephine L. Staton of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed without prejudice a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933, and Regulation S K against an electric automobile company, certain of its executives and directors, and underwriters in the company’s initial public offering. Crews v. Rivian Automotive, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01524-JLS-E, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2023), ECF No. 149. Plaintiffs alleged that the company made various misrepresentations relating to the pricing and profitability of the company’s vehicles, while allegedly knowing that it would need to increase pricing to address rising costs. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any false statement or actionable omission.

On February 22, 2023, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York declined to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against a blockchain technology company and its CEO.  Friel v. Dapper Labs, Inc., —F. Supp. 3d—, 2023 WL 2162747, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company’s offer and sale of non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) constituted a sale of unregistered securities.  The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged that the NFTs in question were securities subject to SEC registration requirements.

On February 21, 2023, the United States Supreme Court formally dismissed the appeal of a case in which a settlement had been announced after certiorari was granted to review a decision by a California state court allowing plaintiffs to take discovery in an action under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). Pivotal Software, Inc. v. Tran, No. 20-1541.  As noted in our prior post, the issue presented by the petition was whether the discovery-stay provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ( “PSLRA”)—which provides that “[i]n any private action arising under” the Securities Act, “all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss”—applies in Securities Act cases filed in state court.

On February 2, 2023, Judge Steven P. Logan of the United States District of Arizona dismissed a putative class action alleging that manufacturer of hydrogen-electric vehicles (the “Company”), the Company’s former CEO (the “CEO”), and certain of its other senior executives (the “Individual Defendants”) misled investors about the Company’s hydrogen fuel cell technology and business prospects for its electric trucks in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation et al., No. 20-cv-01797 WL 1472852 (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 2023).   Although the Court held that plaintiff had adequately alleged the falsity of certain categories of alleged misstatements, the Court ruled that plaintiffs failed to plead a strong inference of scienter as to certain defendants and failed to plead loss causation generally.
 

​On February 1, 2023, Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed a putative securities fraud action against a cybersecurity company (the “Company”) and several of its executives and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act.  Firemen’s Retirement System of St. Louis, et al. v. Telos Corp., et al., No. 1:22-cv-00135 (E.D. Va. Feb. 1, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misled investors about the status and prospects of key government contracts and falsely certified to having reasonable financial controls.  The court dismissed the action without prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege falsity or scienter. 
 

On February 1, 2023, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action against a cryptocurrency exchange company, its parent, and the parent’s CEO, asserting claims under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and certain California, Florida, and New Jersey statutes.  Underwood v. Coinbase Global, Inc.,—F. Supp. 3d—, 2023 WL 1431965 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company sold or solicited securities, and entered into contracts to buy and sell securities, without registering as an exchange or broker-dealer.  The Court held that, even if cryptocurrencies were deemed securities, plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the company itself sold or solicited cryptocurrency tokens to or from exchange participants, or that any contract with the company required plaintiffs to purchase or sell prohibited securities.
 

On January 18, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s order dismissing the putative securities class action with prejudice, holding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that a major theme park operator (the “Company”) and two of its executives made material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Oklahoma Firefighter Pension and Retirement Systems v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, No. 21-10865, 2023 WL 228268 (5th Cir. 2023).  Largely on information from a former employee (“FE”), the complaint alleged that defendants misled investors by projecting unrealistic or impossible timelines for opening theme parks in China.  After significantly discounting the FE’s allegations, the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the complaint adequately alleged the FE’s personal knowledge of the relevant topics and that the FE’s allegations should be discounted “only minimally.”

On January 22, 2023, Judge Percy Anderson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss the third amended class action complaint (“TAC”) in a putative class action alleging that a video game company (the “Company”) and four of its officers misled investors by making material misstatements and omissions concerning sexual harassment and discrimination at the Company.  Cheng v. Activision Blizzard Inc. et al., 2:21-cv-06240 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ TAC with prejudice, finding plaintiffs failed to plead falsity and scienter.

On January 23, 2023, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted in a case that asked the Court to consider how to determine the application of attorney-client privilege to so-called “dual-purpose” communications, i.e., communications that reflect both legal and non-legal advice.  In re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, slip op., 589 U.S. ___ (2023).  As we covered in a previous post, the Court granted a petition for certiorari to review a Ninth Circuit decision that held that the “primary purpose” should apply, which the Ninth Circuit stated requires the court to look to whether the primary purpose of the communication was to give or receive legal advice.  The Ninth Circuit had expressly left open whether the test should focus on determining whether “a primary purpose” or “the primary purpose” is seeking or providing legal advice.  In re Grand Jury, 23 F.4th 1088, 1091-92, 1094 (9th Cir. 2022).

On January 6, 2023, Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York denied a motion to dismiss claims against a cannabis and tobacco engineering company (the “Company”) alleging that the Company failed to disclose an investigation by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Noto v. 22nd Century Group Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01285, 2023 WL 122305 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2023). Following a January 2021 dismissal of the complaint, and the Second Circuit’s reversal of that decision, the Company again moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims. The Court denied the Company’s motion and permitted plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims to proceed.

On January 11, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(b) against an electric vehicle company and its CEO.  In re CCIV/Lucid Motors Sec. Litig., No. 4:21-cv-9323, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2023), ECF No. 151.  Plaintiffs, who allegedly purchased shares in a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (“SPAC”) that later merged with the electric vehicle company (with the electric vehicle company becoming the surviving entity of the merger), alleged that, prior to the merger, the company had made misrepresentations and omissions about its value.  Plaintiffs claimed to have invested in the SPAC after the press had announced the SPAC was “in talks” with the electric vehicle company, but before the merger was officially announced by the SPAC and the company themselves.  Following post-merger statements that allegedly contradicted the company’s pre-merger statements, plaintiffs sued, claiming that defendants’ alleged misrepresentations regarding the electric vehicle company’s value had caused them to pay an inflated price for the SPAC’s stock.  The Court held that plaintiffs had standing to sue the electric vehicle company, but dismissed their claims for failure to identify any material misrepresentations because the challenged statements were made before the SPAC and the electric vehicle company had announced or confirmed that they were in merger discussions.

On January 10, 2023, Judge Paul 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 an online sports gaming and betting company and certain of its executives.  In re DraftKings Inc. Sec. Litig., 2023 WL 145591 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2023).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations and omissions regarding whether a target company it acquired had gambling operations in jurisdictions where gambling was illegal.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege actionable misrepresentations or scienter.

On January 9, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in In re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, a case with potentially far-reaching implications concerning the application of the attorney-client privilege to so-called “dual-purpose” communications, i.e., communications that reflect both legal and non-legal advice.

On December 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and denied in part the dismissal of a purported class action suit against a real estate property management company (the “Company”) alleging the Company made material misstatements or omissions in social media posts, in violation Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  Pino v. Cardone Capital, LLC, No. 21-55564, 2022 WL 17826876 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2022).  Plaintiff alleged that the Company misrepresented the returns investors could make by investing in the Company’s investment funds in videos posted on social media sites.  The district court found that the Company was not a “statutory seller” under Section 12 and dismissed the suit in its entirety.  In a unanimous opinion, the Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that the Company did qualify as a statutory seller.  In a memorandum disposition filed on the same day, the Ninth Circuit held that some of the alleged misstatements were not actionable under the Securities Act and affirmed dismissal of claims based on those statements.

On December 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari to review a split decision by the Ninth Circuit holding that plaintiff-investors had standing under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) to sue a workplace communication software company (the “Company”) based on shares purchased through a direct listing.  Slack Technologies, LLC, et al., v Fiyyaz Pirani, No. 22-200 (U.S. Dec. 13, 2022).  The issue before the Supreme Court is whether Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act require plaintiffs to plead and prove that they bought shares that were registered under the registration statement they claim was misleading.

On December 12, 2022, Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to a major pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and dismissed class action claims that the Company failed to disclose a “serious and known link” between the Company’s breast implant products and a rare form of cancer, breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re Allergan PLC Securities Litigation, 2022 WL 17584155 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).  The Court held that the challenged statements were “literally true and not misleading” and that plaintiff failed to prove after extensive discovery that either scientific studies or the regulatory community had determined that the Company’s implants were in fact more closely associated with BIA-ALCL than other types of implants. Because discovery did not uncover any evidence of falsity and plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of fact with respect to the materiality of the alleged misrepresentations or as to loss causation, the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment.

On December 7, 2022, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington largely denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an online real estate listing company and certain of its executives.  Jaeger v. Zillow Group, Inc., 2022 WL 17486297 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 7, 2022). Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations in connection with a real estate purchasing program.  While the Court dismissed one allegation as a non-actionable forward-looking statement, the Court held that the remainder of plaintiff’s allegations stated a claim.

On December 5, 2022, Judge Denise Cote 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 an alcoholic beverage manufacturer and certain of its executives.  Siegel v. Boston Beer Co., Inc., 2022 WL 17417111 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2022). Plaintiff alleged that the company made misleading statements related to the performance of the company’s products in the hard seltzer market as the pandemic subsided and consumers returned to bars and restaurants. The Court assessed three categories of alleged misstatements and held that none was actionable.

 
On November 22, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against an online education platform (the “Company”) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. Boykin v. K12, Inc., No. 21-2351, 2022 WL 17097453 (4th Cir. 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company artificially inflated the cost of its shares by misrepresenting the state of its business during the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court found that plaintiffs failed to plead falsity and scienter and granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege actionable misrepresentations or facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter.

On November 7, 2022, Judge Allyne R. Ross of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a space exploration company (the “Company”), its founder, and certain of its current and former executives. Kusnier and Scheele v. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., et al, No. 21-cv-03070-ARR (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the safety history and functioning capabilities of the Company’s spacecraft. The Court granted the motion in part but found sufficient at the pleading stage certain alleged misstatements.
 

On October 25, 2022, Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against an enterprise data cloud platform company (the “Company”). In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-03221-MMC, 2022 WL 14813896 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misled investors in its characterization of the Company’s platform in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. The Court, having dismissed an earlier complaint, dismissed the claims without further leave to amend, finding that the Company’s statements were not false or misleading.

On October 20, 2022, Judge George A. O’Toole, Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Court”) denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a business communications infrastructure company (the “Company”) and three of its executives.  Miller v. Sonus Networks, Inc., et al, No. 18-12344-GAO (D. Mass Oct. 20, 2022).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s projected sales and revenue forecast.  The Court denied the motion, finding that plaintiff adequately pled scienter.

On October 18, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of a putative class action against more than twenty banks and certain brokers alleging a conspiracy to manipulate Yen-LIBOR (“LIBOR”) and Euroyen TIBOR (“TIBOR”) rates.  Laydon v. Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A., et al., No. 20-3626 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2022).  Plaintiff brought claims under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and sought leave to assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962, 1964(c).  The Court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the CEA and antitrust claims and denying leave to add the RICO claims, holding that the alleged conduct was impermissibly extraterritorial under the CEA, plaintiff lacked antitrust standing because he would not be an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws, and plaintiff failed to allege proximate causation for a RICO claim.

On September 30, 2022, Judge Margo K. Brodie of the Unites States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action against a bedding company (the “Company”) alleging that the Company misled investors about the Company’s strength and potential for growth in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Lematta v. Casper Sleep, Inc., et al., No. 20-CV-2744 (MKB), 2022 WL 4637795 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2022).  The Court held that (i) alleged misstatements about optimizing pricing and promotional strategies in offering materials for the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) were not misleading and (ii) alleged misstatements about anticipated growth were puffery or forward-looking statements accompanied by sufficient cautionary language.  The Court otherwise denied the motion to dismiss.

On September 30, 2022, 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 Act of 1933 against an e-cigarette manufacturer, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the company’s initial public offering in the United States.  Garnett v. RLX Tech., Inc., No. 21-cv-5125, 2022 WL 4632323 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the China-based company failed to disclose the likelihood of increased e-cigarette regulations in China that would harm the company’s financial prospects.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any actionable misrepresentation.

On September 29, 2022, Chief Judge David C. Godbey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an oil company and certain of its officers.  Yoshikawa v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:21-CV-00194-N, 2022 WL 4677621 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations in connection with the company’s purchase of certain oil and gas assets and its expected production from those assets.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter but granted plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend with respect to certain alleged misstatements as to which the Court held plaintiffs had alleged a plausible theory of falsity and materiality.

On September 30, 2022, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing a putative securities fraud class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against a flavoring and fragrance products company (the “Company”) and several of its executives.  Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd., et al. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd., et al., No 21-1076 (2d Cir. Sept. 30, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that, from 2002 to 2018, the Company engaged in a “long-running bribery scheme,” and that defendants made materially misleading statements about the Company’s compliance with anti-bribery laws and its business growth in public documents filed when the Company was acquired in 2018.  The district court granted the motion to dismiss as against the Company and its officers, holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege statutory standing to pursue their securities fraud claims.  The Second Circuit affirmed.

On September 12, 2022, Judge J. Paul Oetken 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 pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  In re AstraZeneca plc Sec. Litig., 2022 WL 4133258 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misstatements and omissions with respect to clinical trials of its COVID-19 vaccine.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to identify any misleading statements and failed to adequately allege scienter.

On August 23, 2022, Judge Gerald Austin McHugh, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted class certification in a securities fraud class action against an energy company and its subsidiary (the “Company”) and its executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit alleged that defendants made misstatements and omissions regarding the status of the construction of three natural gas pipelines and that the Company’s stock price dropped following certain corrective disclosures.  The Court certified the class after holding that plaintiffs met the requirements of Rule 23(a) as well as the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).

On August 23, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit unanimously reversed the dismissal of a putative securities class action against an online education company (the “Company”), alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 20A of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements about the size and productivity of the Company’s sales force.  The district court dismissed the Exchange Act claims because plaintiffs failed to plead a strong inference of scienter and dismissed both the Exchange Act and the Securities Act claims for failure to plead a violation of Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K.  On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that (i) the Exchange Act allegations “support[ed] an inference of scienter at least as compelling as any nonculpable inference” and (ii) the district court relied on “erroneous reasoning” to dismiss the Exchange Act and Securities Act claims based on the alleged violation of Item 303.

On August 18, 2022, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granting a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange against a health care and pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and two of its senior executives. City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust, et. al. v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 21-1479 (1st Cir. Aug 18, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that, following the Company’s 2015 acquisition of another health care company (the “Merger”), the Company’s executives issued false statements and misleading omissions about various post-Merger issues. In affirming dismissal of the amended complaint, the First Circuit held that the district court’s assessment was “right on the mark” and that “[p]laintiffs failed to allege that defendants made statements of fact that were false when made or misleadingly incomplete in light of the contemporaneous circumstances.”

On August 17, 2022, Judge Steven D. Grimberg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging an investment bank (the “Company”), certain of its advisors (the “Advisor Defendants”), and certain of its external accountants (the “Accounting Defendants”) aided and abetted one of the Company’s former advisors (the “Individual Defendant”) in facilitating an alleged decade-long Ponzi scheme.  6694 Dawson Blvd, LLC v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., et al., 1:21-cv-03625.  (N.D. Geo. Aug. 17, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented or concealed material facts that, had plaintiffs known, would have caused them not to purchase allegedly “bogus” securities from the Individual Defendant.

On August 18, 2022, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granting a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange against a health care and pharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and two of its senior executives.  City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust, et. al. v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 21-1479 (1st Cir. Aug 18, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that, following the Company’s 2015 acquisition of another health care company (the “Merger”), the Company’s executives issued false statements and misleading omissions about various post-Merger issues.  In affirming dismissal of the amended complaint, the First Circuit held that the district court’s assessment was “right on the mark” and that “[p]laintiffs failed to allege that defendants made statements of fact that were false when made or misleadingly incomplete in light of the contemporaneous circumstances.”

On August 8, 2022, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a proposed securities class action suit against a financial technology company (the “Company”) and four of its executives alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Huei-Ting Kang v. PayPal Holdings Inc., No. 3:21-cv-06468 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misled investors about its compliance with (1) a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) Consent Order (the “Consent Order”) prohibiting deceptive marketing of the company’s revolving line of credit; and (2) the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation II, which caps debit card interchange fees.  The Court’s dismissal of the complaint (with leave to amend) is a reminder of the challenges plaintiffs face when trying to assert securities claims in the wake of company announcements of regulatory investigations.

On August 4, 2022, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed without prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a recycling services company, certain of its officers and directors, and the former CEO of a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that acquired the company.  Theodore v. PureCycle Tech. Inc., No. 6:21-cv-809-PGB-GJK, slip op. (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2022), ECF No. 112.  Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations with respect to its management team’s experience, the value of its patented recycling process, and its future production and financial projections, which were allegedly revealed in a short-seller report.  The Court held that the complaint on its face failed to state precisely which statements or omissions were at issue and where they were made, that plaintiffs adequately alleged certain misrepresentations but not others, and that plaintiffs adequately alleged loss causation but not scienter.

On August 4, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  Paxton v. Provention Bio, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-11613, slip op. (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2022), ECF No. 57.  Plaintiffs alleged the company made misrepresentations in connection with the company’s candidate drug intended to delay or prevent the progression of Type One Diabetes.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege actionable misrepresentations, scienter, or loss causation.

On August 1, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against a medical technology company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the company’s stock offerings.  Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., —F.4th—, 2022 WL 3022297 (11th Cir. 2022).  The appeal solely concerned plaintiffs’ claim that the company had overstated the frequency of peripheral nerve injuries and repairs.  The Court held that these statements were forward-looking statements that were not actionable under the safe-harbor provision of the Securities Act.

On July 26, 2022, Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division granted in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment in a securities fraud class action against an insurance company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  In re The Allstate Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 16-C-10510 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements and omissions regarding a spike in the frequency of automobile policy claims, which plaintiffs alleged had a negative impact on the Company’s financial condition and stock price.

On July 27, 2022, a unanimous panel of 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 dismissing a putative securities fraud class action asserting a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as claims under the Commodities Exchange Act, against an options and futures exchange company (the “Company”).  Brian Barry, et al. v. CBOE Global Markets, Inc., et al., No. 20-1843 (7th Cir. July 27, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company violated the Exchange Act by trading options and futures based on an index it created (“VIX”) that was designed to estimate the near-term volatility in the S&P 500 Index, but allegedly was subject to market manipulation by unknown traders (the “Doe Defendants”) soon after its creation.  The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead scienter.

On July 15, 2022, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California largely denied a motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action against a biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In re FibroGen, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 21-cv-02623-EMC (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made 96 false and misleading statements concerning the “safety and efficacy data of its flagship drug.”  Although the Court held that a handful of the misstatements were not actionable for failure to adequately allege falsity, the Court otherwise denied the motion to dismiss.

On July 15, 2022, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a children’s cartoon company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In Re Genius Brands Int’l, Inc. Sec. Litig., CV 20-7457 DSF (RAOx) (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2022).  In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the Company made materially false and misleading statements and omissions about the Company’s engagement of a stock promotion company, an impending acquisition by Disney or Netflix, and its economic resilience in the face of COVID-19, among other topics.  The Court dismissed the claims with prejudice for failure to adequately plead falsity or materiality, and further held that the complaint of 289 paragraphs and 84 pages violated Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that requires a “short and plain statement” of the claims.

On July 13, 2022, the United States District Court for the Central District of California largely denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), a space industry startup that was the SPAC’s target, certain executives of both companies, and an investor that served as sponsor of the SPAC.  In re Stable Road Acquisition Sec. Litig., No. 2:21-cv-05744, slip op. (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2022), ECF No. 154.  Plaintiff alleged that the target company made misrepresentations regarding the viability of its technology and the immigration and national security status of its CEO, which the SPAC allegedly repeated without conducting adequate due diligence.  The Court held that plaintiff’s allegations were largely sufficient but that plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter or control person liability with respect to certain executives.

On July 5, 2022, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California granted motions to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), against a mobile gaming technology company (the “Company”), certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters.  Jedrzejczyk, et al. v. Skillz Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-03450-RS (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding the Company’s financial condition, technical capabilities, and business prospects.  The Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity, scienter, or loss causation as to the Exchange Act claims, and that plaintiffs had not established standing or adequately pled material untrue statements or omissions as to the Securities Act claims.