On March 30, 2024, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a biotechnology company that develops and sells skin treatment drugs and certain of its officers. Aramic LLC, et al. v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc., No. 21-cv-0985-AMO (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2024). Plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of investors in the Company, alleged that defendants made false or misleading statements about the timing and likelihood of FDA approval of the Company’s drug in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court dismissed the amended complaint, finding that plaintiff failed to allege that most of the challenged statements were false or misleading and that plaintiff in any event failed to allege adequately scienter.

On March 30, 2024, Judge Victoria Marie Calvert of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against an optical retail company and certain of its executive officers (the “Individual Defendants”). City of Southfield General Employees Retirement Sys. v. National Vision Holdings, et al., No. 23-cv-00425-VMC (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding staffing and wage pressures faced by the Company leading up to and through the Covid-19 pandemic. The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead falsity and scienter. 

On April 4, 2024, the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (the “First Department”) affirmed dismissal of a securities class action against a mass media and entertainment company (the “Company”) and two of its executives (the “Individual Defendants”), and affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the denial of the motions to dismiss filed by the underwriters of the offerings at issue (the “Underwriters”). Camelot Event Driven Fund, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al., No. 2023-00983 (1st Dep’t Apr. 4, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) by concealing certain information from the offering materials issued in connection with the Company’s March 2021 secondary and initial offerings (the “Offerings”).

On February 23, 2024, Judge Katherine Polk Failla 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 of 1934 against a financial institution and certain of its executives. In re Barclays PLC Sec. Litig., 2024 WL 757385 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that the company had issued securities in excess of what it had registered for with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which allegedly rendered misleading certain of its statements regarding compliance with securities laws and internal controls. Id. While the Court held that certain alleged misrepresentations were adequately pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed claims as to statements made after the alleged over-issuances were disclosed and rejected plaintiff’s control person liability theory as to certain defendants.

On February 1, 2024, Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against an IT solutions company that provides digital communication, cybersecurity and IT consulting services, its CEO and current and former CFOs.  Connor v. Unisys Corp., et al., No. 22-4529 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2024).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants made false representations about the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Court dismissed the amended complaint, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately allege falsity, scienter and loss causation.

On July 10, 2023, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a mattress and bedding company (the “Company”) and two of its executives.  Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Securities Funds v. Sleep Number Corp., et al, No. 21-CV-2669 (PJS/DTS) (D. Minn. July 10, 2010).  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 an alleged disruption to the Company’s supply chain after a natural disaster that forced certain of the Company’s distributors to temporarily shut down.  The Court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity and scienter.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

On May 31, 2022, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California dismissed without prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act against a synthetic biology company and certain of its executives.  Joseph v. Precigen, Inc., No. 20-cv-06936-BLF (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2022).  Plaintiff alleged that the company misrepresented the efficiency and economic viability of its methane conversion program.  The Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter and failed to allege falsity with respect to certain alleged misrepresentations; however, the Court granted leave to replead.

On April 12, 2022, Judge Rachel P. Kovner of the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss 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 thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against an airline company (the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors.  In re GOL Linhas Aéreas Inteligentes S.A. Securities Litigation, No. 1:20-cv-04243-RPK-TAM (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made materially misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s financial strength in an earnings report issued in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite allegedly knowing that its auditor would be issuing a report emphasizing a going concern and raising material weaknesses concerning the Company’s internal controls.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead material misstatements or omissions as well as scienter.

On March 30, 2022, Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas denied the majority of a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an information technology company, certain of its executives, and private equity firms that owned the company’s securities.  In re SolarWinds Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 1:21-CV-138-RP (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that company statements regarding its cybersecurity policies and practices were revealed to be false and misleading upon the disclosure of a security breach.  The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged falsity, scienter, and loss causation, except as to the company’s CEO, the allegations as to whom the Court granted plaintiffs leave to replead.

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 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 March 31, 2021, Judge Alfred H. Bennett of the Southern District of Texas denied a motion to dismiss claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against a company that operates live adult entertainment businesses and bar-restaurants (the “Company”) and certain of its executives, as well as members of its audit, compensation, and nominating committees.  Hoffman, et al v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al, No. 4:19-cv-01841 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants made misleading statements or omissions concerning certain related-party transactions (RPTs), executive compensation, and other financial points in several of the Company’s Form 10-K annual reports.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, holding that plaintiffs sufficiently pled material misstatements and scienter.
 

On April 1, 2021, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the Eastern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a claim under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, against a surgical implants manufacturer (the “Company”) and certain of its current and former officers.  Lowry v. RTI Surgical Holdings Inc., No. 20-cv-01939 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s accounting and revenue recognition practices which caused a stock drop once corrective disclosures were made.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, holding that plaintiffs sufficiently pled material misstatements and scienter.
 

On January 7, 2021, Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. of the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss, with prejudice, in 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 SEC Regulation S-K, Item 303, against a life insurance company (the “Company”) and certain of its executives.  Parchmann v. Metlife, et al., No. 18-cv-00780-SJ-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2021).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants made materially misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial condition and internal controls with respect to one of the Company’s Retirement and Income Solution (“RIS”) programs.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding, among other things, that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity, loss causation, and scienter.
 

On November 16, 2020, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a Section 10(b) claim under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), as well as a Section 20(a) claim under the Exchange Act as it relates to the Section 10(b) claim, against a lead-acid battery recycler (the “Company”) and three of its senior officers.  In re Aqua Metals Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 17-cv-07142 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s novel recycling technology and its commercialization process.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead any actionable material misstatements or scienter.  Certain claims in the case addressed in connection with a prior motion to dismiss were not the subject of this decision and will survive.
 

On November 4, 2020, 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 to dismiss claims asserted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a technology company and certain of its executives.  In re Apple Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 19-cv-02033-YGR, slip. op. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2020), ECF No. 118.  Plaintiffs alleged that the company and its CEO made material misstatements relating to the company’s earnings guidance, which the company ultimately did not meet.  Slip. op. at 4.  The Court dismissed claims based on certain of the alleged misstatements, which it held were not false or misleading, but determined that falsity and scienter were sufficiently alleged as to other alleged misstatements.
 

On October 26, 2020, Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. of the Eastern District of Virginia denied motions 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”) against a building products company (the “Company”), certain of its executives, and an institutional majority shareholder of the Company.  Cambridge Retirement System v. Jeld-Wen Holding, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-112 (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants made material misstatements and omissions concerning the Company’s pricing strategy, alleged anti-competitive conduct, and the impact of a finding of liability in a separate antitrust private suit.  The Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint, holding that plaintiffs adequately pled material misrepresentations or omissions, falsity, scienter and loss causation.
 

On June 22, 2020, a Seventh Circuit panel of three judges affirmed a district court ruling dismissing securities fraud claims against a biopharmaceutical company (the “Company”) and one of its officers in connection with a Dutch auction tender offer the Company made to repurchase certain of the Company’s outstanding shares.  Walleye Trading LLC v. AbbVie Inc., et al., No. 19-3063 (7th Cir. June 22, 2020).  Plaintiff, a shareholder of the Company, alleged that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) when the Company announced preliminary results of the tender offer and subsequently announced corrected results later that same day after trading closed.  Plaintiff also alleged that one of the Company’s officers violated section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
 

On April 21, 2020, Judge Susan Illston 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 lawsuit asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against a software company (the “Company”), certain of its executives and directors, and three venture capital firms (the “VC Defendants”) that held a significant percentage of the Company’s voting power.  Fiyyaz Pirani v. Slack Technologies, Inc., et. al., No. 19-cv-05857-SI (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants were liable for materially misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company’s service outages, competition, scalability, and growth strategy in offering materials in connection with the Company’s direct listing of preexisting shares to the public.  The Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, and granted plaintiff leave to amend to cure the amended complaint’s deficiencies.
 

On February 7, 2020, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss a putative securities class action against an automotive aftermarket parts provider (the “Company”), certain members of its management (the “Company Individual Defendants”), a hedge fund that owned approximately four percent of the Company’s shares, and the fund’s Chief Executive Officer who was a member of the Company’s board of directors.  In re Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Sec. Litig., No. CV-18-212-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making misleading misstatements and omissions about the Company’s projected growth and financial condition.  The Court dismissed the claims to the extent it found them to be puffery or lacking sufficient allegations of falsity, but denied the motion with respect to claims based on statements related to projections and opinions regarding the Company’s financial outlook. 
 

On December 3, 2019, Judge John W. Lungstrum of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action involving claims brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against a financial services company (the “Company”), three of its senior officers and several of its founder directors.  Yellowdog Partners, LP and Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois v. CURO Group Holdings Corp. et al., 18-cv-02662 (D. Kan. Dec. 3, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company and the three officer defendants made false and materially misleading statements concerning the Company’s business transition away from its most profitable product and its effect on the Company’s financial condition.  The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded falsity and scienter.
 

On November 6, 2016, Judge Michael A. Anello of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a securities class action against a theme park and entertainment company (“defendant” or the “Company”), certain members of its management, and its largest shareholder.  Baker v. SeaWorld Entm’t, Inc., No. 14CV2129-MMA (AGS), 2019 WL 6118448 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially misleading misstatements and omissions about the effect of Blackfish, a documentary film concerning killer whales in captivity, on attendance at the theme park and its earnings.  The Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis that there were genuine issues of material fact with respect to each element of a securities fraud claim. 

On November 19, 2019, Judge William M. Campbell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss a putative class action under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a healthcare company, certain of its officers and directors, and a private equity firm that previously owned the company.  Plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to disclose that allegedly improper business practices were responsible for its revenue growth.  In re Envision Healthcare Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 3:17-CV-01112, 2019 WL 6168254 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 19, 2019).  The Court held that certain of the claims against the company and the individual defendants were adequately pleaded and others were not, but dismissed all claims against the private equity firm for failure to adequately allege scienter.
 

On December 10, 2018, Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied defendants’ motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting violations of Sections 12(a)(1) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  Solis v. Latium Network, Inc., et al., No. 18-10255 (D. N.J. Dec. 10, 2018).  Plaintiff alleged that the defendants, a blockchain-based tasking platform (the “Company”) and its co-founders and officers, sold over $17 million in cryptocurrency tokens in an initial coin offering (“ICO”) without registering the tokens.  The Court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the Company’s tokens were securities that should have been registered under the Securities Act prior to the ICO.

On October 10, 2018, Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a memorandum opinion and order setting forth the reasoning for his September 30, 2018, dismissal of a putative securities class action against SuperCom Inc. (the “Company”), an Israeli manufacturer of electronic identification and location tracking products, and certain of its officers and directors.  In re SuperCom Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-9650 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2018).  Plaintiffs—purchasers of the Company’s common stock during a ten-month putative class period—alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) as a result of defendants allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s revenue and earnings projections for 2015, which plaintiffs allege led to a 40% decline in the Company’s stock price when the Company subsequently announced lower-than-expected financial results.  The Court disagreed, finding that the alleged misstatements are protected by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ( “PSLRA”) safe harbor because plaintiffs either failed to adequately allege material misstatements or failed to adequately allege the requisite scienter necessary to support their claims.

On September 7, 2018, Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a second amended putative class action complaint on behalf of Volkswagen bondholders asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Volkswagen and certain of its former executives alleging that defendants failed to disclose Volkswagen’s use of “defeat device” software to mask emissions in the company’s diesel engines.  In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018).  In its previous July 19, 2017 and March 2, 2018 orders, as discussed in our prior posts, the Court had first dismissed certain claims for failure to adequately plead scienter and then, reconsidering its prior holding that plaintiff was entitled to a presumption of reliance under Affiliated Ute, dismissed plaintiff’s first amended complaint in its entirety for failure to plead reliance.  In considering the second amended complaint, the Court held that scienter and individual, direct reliance were adequately alleged, but raised questions about plaintiff’s ability to prove class-wide reliance.

On July 10, 2017, Judge John G. Koeltl of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative securities fraud class action against E*TRADE Securities LLC (“E*TRADE”), E*TRADE Financial Corporation (“E*TRADE Financial), and one current and one former officer of E*TRADE Financial.  Schwab v. E*TRADE Fin. Corp., No. 16-cv-05891 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2017).  Plaintiff alleged that E*TRADE misled its clients by falsely representing that it would execute orders consistent with its duty of “best execution,” which requires it to use “reasonable diligence” to obtain the most favorable price for a customer under “prevailing market conditions.”  Plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as control person claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead reliance or scienter, and also failed to plead culpable participation sufficient to state a control person claim.

Read more

On June 28, 2017, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled, among other things, that allegations of knowledge of “defeat devices” did not equate to knowledge of the probability of exposure from the devices and granted in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft and certain of its affiliates (“VW”) and officers and directors, asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as additional “control person” claims against the officers and directors under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC), 2017 WL 2798525 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2017).  Plaintiffs alleged that VW’s financial statements and statements regarding its U.S. vehicles’ compliance with diesel emissions standards were misleading because VW had failed to disclose, in various manners, that it had been using “defeat device” software to manipulate emissions tests in vehicles sold in the United States.  After plaintiffs were given leave to replead following an earlier motion to dismiss, the Court held that the amended complaint’s allegations supported claims regarding financial statements after May 2014, but dismissed claims regarding earlier alleged misstatements.  In addition, the Court dismissed claims against one individual defendant for failure to sufficiently allege scienter and “control.”

Read more