As I have noted in recent blog posts, there have already been several securities class action lawsuits filed this year related to the current wave of SPAC activity. These recently filed lawsuits have only just been filed and have not yet made their way to the dispositive motion stage. However, there are also other earlier-filed SPAC-related lawsuits pending, involving SPAC-related transactions that preceded the current SPAC wave. One of these earlier filed securities lawsuits involves Alta Mesa Resources, a company that collapsed within the first year after it was formed in a 2018 merger with a SPAC. On April 14, 2021, Southern District of Texas Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Alta Mesa case, in a ruling that may be of interest in relation to the numerous more-recently filed SPAC-related lawsuits. A copy of the order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss can be found here.
Continue Reading SPAC-Related Securities Suit Survives Dismissal Motion

Tim Hoeffner
Paul Ferrillo

In the following guest post, Tim Hoeffner and Paul Ferrillo of the McDermott Will & Emery law firm take a look at Southern District of New York Judge Ronnie Abrams’s April 2, 2020 order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Adient PLC Securities Litigation. I would like to thank Tim and Paul for allowing me the opportunity to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Tim and Paul’s article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Scienter “Takes a Seat” Front Row Center in New SDNY Case

The motion to dismiss phase is a critical stage in the life cycle of a securities class action lawsuit. If a case survives the dismissal motion, it likely will move toward settlement, as so few cases actually go to trial. The motion to dismiss in intended to test the sufficiency of the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint. According to the rules, the court’s inquiry should be limited to the matter within the complaint. However, over time, rules have developed permitting courts to consider matter from outside the complaint, pursuant to the doctrines of judicial notice and incorporation by reference.

In a detailed August 13, 2018 opinion in which it largely reversed the dismissal of securities class action lawsuit involving the developmental stage pharmaceutical company Orexigen Therapeutics, the Ninth Circuit noted a “concerning pattern in securities cases” in which “overuse” of the doctrines has resulted in improper dismissal of securities suits at the pleading stage based on extraneous matter. The Ninth Circuit’s analysis of the judicial notice and incorporation by reference doctrines is interesting and could have a significant impact on courts’ consideration of matter outside of the complaint in future cases. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in the Khoja v. Orexigen Therpeutics case can be found here.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Decries Consideration of Extraneous Matter, Reverses Securities Suit Dismissal