At the outset of the current U.S. Supreme Court term, corporate and securities law observers and commentators were excited that the Court had agreed to take up two securities law cases that had significant potential to provide insights about securities lawsuit pleading standards and processes. However, as noted here, in November, the court dismissed
The current Supreme Court term promised to be an interesting one from a securities law standpoint, as the Court had agreed to take up two cases dealing with key securities class action litigation issues. One of those cases is the securities case involving the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica’s user data scandal. The Facebook case would have required the Court to address an important and recurring disclosure related issue. However, on November 22, 2024, the Court issued a single-line order stating that “the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted,” meaning that the Supreme Court’s consideration of the Facebook case will now not go forward, and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the case, in which the appellate court reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of the case, will now stand. A copy of the Supreme Court’s November 22, 2024, order can be found here.Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses Facebook Case, Saying Writ Improvidently Granted
As I have previously noted on this site (for example, here), a long-standing and frequently recurring litigation pattern has been the filing of a corporate or securities lawsuit in the wake of an antitrust enforcement action. In the latest example of this pattern, the card payment processing company Visa has been hit with a securities class action lawsuit after the DOJ launched an antitrust enforcement action against the company in September. There are several interesting features to this new lawsuit, as discussed below. The November 20, 2024, complaint against Visa can be found here.Continue Reading Antitrust Enforcement Action Against VISA Leads to Follow-On Securities Suit
One of the more interesting developments in the securities litigation arena over the past several years has been the continuing influx of pandemic-related securities class action lawsuit filings. Here we are now approaching what will be the sixth year since the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in the U.S. and yet the pandemic-related suits are continuing to come in. In the latest example, last week a shareholder plaintiff filed a securities class action lawsuit against the toy company Hasbro, alleging that the company misled investors by claiming that the level of inventory it built up in response to pandemic lockdown-related consumer demand was appropriate, only to later announce it would have to incur substantial inventory reduction costs. A copy of the November 13, 2024, complaint against Hasbro can be found here.Continue Reading Toy Company Hit with Pandemic-Related Securities Suit
It is now well-recognized, as Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine has famously said, that “Everything Everywhere is securities fraud.” Just the same, it does come as a surprise sometimes to see the things that make their way into securities class action lawsuit complaints. In the latest example of this phenomenon at work, a plaintiff shareholder has filed a securities class action lawsuit against the restaurant company Chipotle Mexican Grill, as a result of a social media campaign raising questions about the chain’s meal portions. To combat the social media chatter, the company concentrated on providing generous portions, which cut into the company’s margins – and drew a securities lawsuit. A copy of the November 11, 2024, complaint in the suit can be found here.Continue Reading Social Media Squabble Over Restaurant Portions Begets Securities Suit
Short sellers have a complicated relationship to securities class action litigation, as several prior posts on this site have noted (most recently here). Among the more unusual roles short sellers can play in a securities suit is to serve as lead plaintiff. One recent high-profile case where a short seller acted as lead plaintiff is the suit filed against Overstock, its founder and former CEO, Patrick Byrne, and other executives. The short seller alleged, with some plausibility, that Overstock and Byrne had attempted to mount a “short squeeze” targeted at the short sellers. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and in an interesting October 15, 2024, opinion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. The appellate court’s opinion has several interesting features, as discussed below.Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Short Seller’s Securities Suit Against Overstock
A Dutch court has entered a significant ruling in one of the long-running efforts by Petrobras investors to recover damages following the company’s bribery scandal. The Petrobras U.S. securities class action lawsuit settled in 2018 for $3 billion. Investors who purchased their Petrobras shares outside the U.S. were not part of that settlement, and these investors have pursued claims elsewhere, including in the Netherlands, where an action filed by a Foundation acting on behalf of a group of investors is pending. In a ruling last week, the District Court of Rotterdam rejected the Foundation’s claims under Brazilian and Argentinian law. The Court also ruled on bondholders’ claims under Luxembourg and Dutch law, as discussed below. The court’s judgment is subject to appeal. Petrobras’s October 30, 2024, filing with the SEC on Form 6-K describing the court’s judgment can be found here.Continue Reading Court Rules on Petrobras Investors’ Claims in Dutch Collective Action
Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba, whose American Depository Shares (ADS) trade on the NYSE, has agreed to settle a long-running securities class action lawsuit in which the company was alleged to have misrepresented its exclusivity practices and certain aspects of the planned but withdrawn IPO of its financial affiliate, Ant Group. The company has agreed to pay $433.5 million to settle the lawsuit. The settlement is subject to court approval. As discussed below, this settlement has several interesting features.Continue Reading Alibaba Settles Securities Suit Over Exclusivity Practices and Ant Group’s Scuttled IPO for $433.5 Million
For the last several years, securities class action lawsuits related to SPACs and de-SPACs have been a significant factor in the overall annual number of securities suit filings. SPAC-related suits remain a significant factor in the number of filings again this year, even though it has now been several years since the peak of the SPAC frenzy. In the latest example, on October 17, 2024, a plaintiff shareholder filed a securities suit against cannabis company WM Technology alleging that both prior to and following its predecessor company’s merger with a SPAC, the company misrepresented a key customer engagement metric. The new lawsuit has some interesting features, as discussed below. A copy of the complaint can be found here.Continue Reading Cannabis Company Hit With SPAC-Related Securities Suits
As I have noted in numerous posts on this site (most recently here), SPAC-related litigation has been a significant factor in the overall volume of corporate and securities litigation filings in recent years. But while I have been attentive to noting the lawsuits as they have been filed, it could be argued that I have not been as dutiful in noting how these cases are being resolved. One recent case resolution – the settlement of the various SPAC-related litigation involving ATI Physical Therapy – is particularly interesting. The court recently approved the settlement of these cases for a total of $31 million. As discussed below, there are several interesting features of these settlements. The court’s approval of the settlements is detailed in a September 24, 2024, Law360 article (here).Continue Reading ATI Physical Therapy Settles SPAC-Related Litigation for $31 Million