Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
23-16049
|
In re: CCIV/Lucid Motors Securities Litigation
Stock purchasers had no standing to assert securities violation claim when they were not purchasers of the contested stock involving the alleged misrepresentations. |
Securities |
|
R. Gould | Aug. 9, 2024 |
23-15822
|
In re: Silver Lake Group, LLC Securities Litigation
Trial court properly dismissed securities claims where plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that the defendant shareholders had material non-public information. |
Securities |
|
M. Smith | Jul. 25, 2024 |
22-859
|
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
Using the Securities and Exchange Commission's in-house adjudicatory process for federal securities fraud action that resulted in civil penalties violated defendants' Seventh Amendment right to jury trial. |
Securities |
|
J. Roberts | Jun. 28, 2024 |
22-55829
|
Espy v. J2 Global Inc.
Plaintiff failed to plead scienter based merely on general criticisms from two former company employees. |
Securities |
|
M. McKeown | Apr. 22, 2024 |
22-1165
|
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P.
Pure omissions are not privately actionable under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5(b) because the statute requires affirmative assertions. |
Securities |
|
S. Sotomayor | Apr. 15, 2024 |
22-55760
|
In re: Ali Alavi v. Genius Brands International, Inc.
Shareholders adequately pled misrepresentation in complaint for Securities Exchange Act violations where complaint cited the defendant's affirmative misleading statements regarding solicitation in a securities purchase agreement. |
Securities |
|
S. Mendoza | Apr. 8, 2024 |
22-55641
|
Andrew Zenoff v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., et al
Dismissal of complaint alleging Securities and Exchange Act violations was appropriate where facts cited by plaintiff did not create a compelling inference that the defendants acted with scienter. |
Securities |
|
C. Callahan | Mar. 26, 2024 |
22-660
|
Murray v. UBS Securities LLC
Sarbanes-Oxley Act Whistleblower was not required to provide evidence of his former securities employer's retaliatory intent. |
Securities |
|
S. Sotomayor | Feb. 9, 2024 |
22-15077
|
Amended Opinion: Amalgamated Bank v. Facebook, Inc.
Facebook shareholders adequately pleaded falsity as to risk statements regarding misuse of user data where Facebook represented the risk as hypothetical, when, in fact, the risks had already materialized. |
Securities |
|
M. McKeown | Dec. 5, 2023 |
22-16632
|
Roth v. Foris Ventures LLC
Securities and Exchange Rule 16b-3 does not require a board of directors to explicitly approve transactions for the purpose of exempting them under the Rule in order for the exemption to apply. |
Securities |
|
M. Smith | Nov. 14, 2023 |
22-15077
|
Amalgamated Bank v. Facebook, Inc.
Facebook shareholders adequately pleaded falsity as to risk statements regarding misuse of user data where Facebook represented the risk as hypothetical, when, in fact, the risks had already materialized. |
Securities |
|
M. McKeown | Oct. 19, 2023 |
21-15604
|
E. Ohman J:Or Fonder AB v. Nvidia Corp.
Statements from plaintiffs' two confidential witnesses were sufficient to establish that NVIDIA's executive officers made knowingly or recklessly false statements. |
Securities |
|
W. Fletcher | Aug. 29, 2023 |
21-55859
|
U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Husain
Summary judgment and imposition of $1,757,000 civil penalty were inappropriate where genuine issues of material fact existed as to the amount of the defendant's gross pecuniary gain and scienter. |
Securities |
|
K. Vratil | Jun. 14, 2023 |
B312129
|
Kanter v. Reed
Plaintiff shareholders could not adequately show that board of directors failed to make a good faith effort to implement an oversight system for its storage facility that later experienced a gas leak. |
Securities |
|
D. Kim | Jun. 6, 2023 |
22-200
|
Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani
An entity must own securities traceable to an allegedly misleading registration statement for a claim under Section 11 of the Securities and Exchange Act. |
Securities |
|
N. Gorsuch | Jun. 2, 2023 |
21-15923
|
Lee v. Fisher
Forum-selection clause inserted in Gap Inc.'s bylaws required shareholder's Security Exchange Act derivative suit against company to be pursued in Delaware. |
Securities |
|
S. Ikuta | Jun. 2, 2023 |
22-15501
|
York County v. HP Inc.
Stockholders' securities fraud violation complaint was not barred by statute of limitations when the SEC order that lead to the discovery of the gravamen of the complaint occurred within the two-year timeframe. |
Securities |
|
J. Bybee | Apr. 12, 2023 |
21-16876
|
Glazer Capital Management, L.P., et al v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al
Cybersecurity company's statements on deals already made with clients that they expected to close were false and made with scienter but many were protected forward-looking economic projections. |
Securities |
|
C. Bea | Mar. 17, 2023 |
21-16702
|
Grier v. Finjan Holdings
Shareholder's securities fraud class action suit failed to meet Securities Exchange Act Section 14(e)'s subjective falsity requirement even though it only required proving a reasonable and not strong inference of falsity. |
Securities |
|
C. Bea | Jan. 23, 2023 |
21-55564
|
Pino v. Cardone Capital LLC
Dismissal of plaintiff's putative class action complaint was error because mass communication via social media posts seeking investors was still a solicitation covered by the Securities Act of 1933. |
Securities |
|
B. Lynn | Dec. 22, 2022 |
21-55178
|
U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Murphy
Individuals who traded and acted as agents behaved as brokers within the Securities Exchange Act's meaning and were required to register as brokers. |
Securities |
|
K. Lee | Oct. 5, 2022 |
21-71114
|
Saliba v. USSEC
Even though it had jurisdiction over other issues, the court lacked jurisdiction over issue SEC remanded because it was not a final order from which legal consequences would flow. |
Securities |
|
D. Ebel | Sep. 1, 2022 |
21-15823
|
Macomb County Employees' Retirement System v. Align Technology, Inc.
In a securities fraud action, statements made by corporate executives were non-actionable puffery because they were vague, generically positive terms to describe the company's potential for growth in a marketplace. |
Securities |
|
M. McKeown | Jul. 8, 2022 |
21-15170
|
In re Nektar Therapeutics Securities Litigation
Plaintiff shareholders failed to adequately plead misrepresentation based on the inclusion of an outlier in claims about a clinical study. |
Securities |
|
K. Lee | May 20, 2022 |
21-15923
|
Lee v. Fisher
Shareholder was unable to prove that Gap Inc.'s forum-selection clause was against public policy. |
Securities |
|
M. Smith | May 16, 2022 |
A161489
|
Wong v. Restoration Robotics
Federal court forum provision requiring that suits be brought in federal court did not implicate the "removal bar" provision of the Securities Act because removal was not at issue. |
Securities |
|
M. Miller | May 2, 2022 |
20-17465
|
Weston Family Partnership v. Twitter
Twitter, Inc. had no legal duty to disclose immediately the software bugs in its Mobile App Promotion product, given that its earlier statements about the product's progress were qualified and vague. |
Securities |
|
K. Lee | Mar. 24, 2022 |
20-16419
|
Pirani v. Slack Technologies
A shareholder who had purchased shares through a direct listing had standing to sue on the grounds that the registration statement was misleading. |
Securities |
|
J. Restani | Sep. 21, 2021 |
20-73819
|
George Mersho v. USDC-AZP
District court erred when it failed to comply with burden shifting process Congress established in Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. |
Securities |
|
A. Gordon | Jul. 26, 2021 |
20-15564
|
In re Volkswagen Litigation
Because plaintiff alleged both omissions and affirmative misrepresentations its case was pushed outside 'Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States' narrow reliance presumption. |
Securities |
|
M. Smith | Jun. 28, 2021 |