Falsity

Subscribe to Falsity via RSS

As I have documented on this site, conservative advocacy and legal groups have been pursuing an aggressive ESG backlash campaign. Among other things, these groups’ efforts have caused several high-profile companies to walk back their DEI initiatives. These groups have also pushed for state-level anti-ESG legislation and have also even pursued anti-ESG litigation. The litigation results have been mixed at best, as noted for example here. However, in the ESG-backlash securities lawsuit filed by a conservative advocacy group against Target in the wake of a consumer boycott following the company’s LGBT “Pride Month” campaign, a federal district court has denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. As discussed below, there are several interesting features of the court’s ruling. A copy of the Court’s December 4, 2024, opinion can be found here.Continue Reading ESG Backlash Securities Suit Against Target Survives Dismissal Motion

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

Just days after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica securities case concerning risk factor disclosures (as discussed here), the Court has now agreed to take up yet another securities case, this time in a case involving Nvidia and involving the standards for pleading scienter and falsity under the PSLRA. The NVIDIA case involves alleged fraud in connection with the company’s disclosures concerning its sales of graphics processing units (GPU) to cryptocurrency companies as a component of its overall GPU sales. The specific questions the case presents to the Supreme Court concern what and how a plaintiff must plead when pleading scienter and falsity. Because the case involves the PSLRA’s “exacting pleading requirements,” the case potentially could prove to be very significant. A copy of the Court’s June 17, 2024 Order granting the petition for writ of certiorari can be found here.Continue Reading Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Nvidia Securities Suit On Pleading Standards Issues

Here at The D&O Diary, we read everything so you don’t have to. One item that crossed my desk this week particularly resonated with me. The specific item was the court’s dismissal motion grant in the securities class action lawsuit pending against the footwear and apparel company Allbirds.

The plaintiffs had tried to argue that by their use in their complaint of bold and italicized font they had indicated which of the defendants’ statements they (the plaintiffs) alleged to be false and misleading. The court said it could not discern from the plaintiffs’ typography what statements or portions or statements were supposed to be misleading and granted the defendants’ dismissal motion with leave for the plaintiffs to attempt to replead. While the ruling could be only a setback for the plaintiffs, there arguably are some lessons here for all of us that should not be overlooked.Continue Reading Boldface and Italics Not Enough to Identify Misleading Statements

As readers of this blog well know, over the last 18 months or so there has been an onslaught of SPAC-related securities class action litigation. Most of these cases have only just been filed and therefore have not yet reached the motion to dismiss stage. However, a number of the earlier filed cases are now reaching that dismissal motion stage, and although the results so far are mixed, some of the cases are surviving the initial pleading hurdles, at least in part.

On July 1 ,2022, and in the latest example of a SPAC-related securities suit surviving the dismissal motion at least in part, Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston partially denied the motion to dismiss in the SPAC-related securities suit filed against Velodyne Lidar and certain of the executives of the SPAC into which Velodyne merged. As discussed below, there are several interesting features of Judge Illston’s opinion, a copy of which can be found here.
Continue Reading SPAC-Related Securities Suit Partially Survives Dismissal Motion

As readers of this blog know, as a follow-on effect to the massive wave of SPAC activity in the U.S., there has also been a surge of securities class action lawsuits involving companies that engaged in SPAC transactions. Many of these suits have only just been filed, so it is too early to tell how they will fare. But some of the cases are now reaching the motion to dismiss stage. If the recent motion to dismiss ruling in the SPAC-related lawsuit against mobile gaming technology company Skillz is any indication, many of these cases could encounter substantial hurdles as they go forward.
Continue Reading Motion to Dismiss Granted in SPAC-Related Securities Suit Against Gaming Company

As I have noted in recent posts (here, for example), SPAC-related securities suit filings continue to accumulate and represent a significant current securities litigation phenomenon. But while the number of suits continues to mount, relatively few of these cases have yet reached the dismissal stage. In a recent ruling, however, the defendant company’s motion to dismiss in a SPAC-related securities suit was substantially denied as to the company itself and its top executives. In particular, the claims based on allegations that the company, Romeo Power, and its senior officials made supply chain misrepresentations were sustained, though the related claims against three former executives of the SPAC with which Romeo had merged were dismissed. A copy of the June 2, 2022 opinion in the case can be found here.
Continue Reading Dismissal Denied in SPAC-Related Securities Suit Alleging Supply Chain Misrepresentations

Ninth CircuitIn the wake of the era of corporate scandals, Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Section 406 of the Act required the SEC to promulgate rules requiring reporting companies to disclose whether or not they have adopted a code of ethics for its financial officers. The SEC subsequently issued rules implementing this directive, and as a result companies facing the new disclosure obligations adopted codes of ethics.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: Ethics Code Violations Insufficient to State Securities Law Claim