Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Bloom Energy, a company specializing in fuel-cell servers, entered into Managed Services Agreements (MSAs), which are sale-leaseback arrangements involving banks and customers. The company initially classified these MSAs as operating leases, based on its assessment that the lease terms were less than 75% of the servers’ estimated useful lives and that the servers were not “integral equipment.” This classification affected how Bloom Energy reported revenue and liabilities in its financial statements. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) was engaged to audit Bloom Energy’s 2016 and 2017 financial statements, which were prepared by Bloom Energy’s management, and PwC issued an audit opinion stating that the financial statements were fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.After Bloom Energy went public in 2018, it later restated its financial statements, reclassifying certain MSAs as capital leases following a review prompted by PwC’s identification of an accounting issue. This restatement led to a significant drop in Bloom Energy’s stock price. Plaintiffs, consisting of shareholders, filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Bloom Energy, its officers, directors, underwriters, and later added PwC as a defendant. They alleged violations of § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, claiming that PwC was liable for material misstatements in the registration statement due to its audit opinion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against PwC. The Ninth Circuit held that under § 11, an independent accountant is not strictly liable for information in a registration statement or financial statements merely because it certified them. PwC’s audit opinion was a statement of subjective judgment, protected as an opinion under Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, and did not contain actionable misstatements or omissions. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against PwC. View "HUNT V. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP" on Justia Law

A real estate investment trust that specializes in purchasing and leasing properties to cannabis companies was defrauded by one of its tenants, Kings Garden, which submitted fraudulent reimbursement requests for capital improvements. The trust paid out over $48 million based on these requests before discovering irregularities, such as forged documentation and payments for work that was not performed. After uncovering the fraud, the trust sued Kings Garden and disclosed the situation to the market, which led to a decline in its stock price.Following these events, several shareholders filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The shareholders claimed that the trust and its executives made false or misleading statements about their due diligence, tenant monitoring, and the nature of reimbursements, and that these misstatements caused their losses when the fraud was revealed. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that while some statements could be misleading, the plaintiffs failed to plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The Third Circuit held that most of the challenged statements were either non-actionable opinions, not false or misleading, or not sufficiently specific. For the one statement plausibly alleged to be false or misleading, the court found that the facts did not support a strong inference that the statement’s maker acted with scienter. The court also rejected the application of corporate scienter and found no basis for control-person liability under Section 20(a) in the absence of a primary violation. View "Handal v. Innovative Industrial Properties Inc" on Justia Law

A group of shareholders in seven small-to-mid cap companies brought coordinated class actions against two major financial institutions, alleging that these institutions enabled Archegos Capital Management to amass large, nonpublic, and highly leveraged positions in the companies’ stocks through total return swaps and margin lending. When the value of these stocks declined and Archegos was unable to meet margin calls, the financial institutions quickly sold off their related positions before the public became aware of Archegos’ impending collapse. The shareholders claimed that this conduct constituted insider trading, arguing that the institutions used confidential information to avoid losses at the expense of ordinary investors.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York first dismissed the shareholders’ complaints, finding insufficient factual allegations to support claims under both the classical and misappropriation theories of insider trading. The court allowed the shareholders to amend their complaint, but after a second amended complaint was filed, the court again dismissed the claims with prejudice. The district court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Archegos was a corporate insider or that the financial institutions owed a fiduciary duty to Archegos. It also found the allegations of tipping preferred clients to be unsupported by sufficient facts. The court dismissed the related claims under Sections 20A and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for lack of an underlying securities violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the shareholders failed to plausibly allege that the financial institutions engaged in insider trading under either the classical or misappropriation theories. The court found no fiduciary or similar duty owed by Archegos to the issuers or by the financial institutions to Archegos, and determined that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support a tipping theory. The court also affirmed dismissal of the Section 20A and 20(a) claims. View "In Re: Archegos 20A Litigation" on Justia Law

Walmart, a national pharmacy operator, was investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas from 2016 to 2018 regarding its opioid dispensing practices. The investigation included raids, subpoenas, and meetings where prosecutors indicated a possible indictment, but ultimately, the Department of Justice declined to prosecute criminally, though a civil investigation continued. In 2020, a news article revealed the investigation, causing Walmart’s stock price to drop. Later that year, the DOJ filed a civil lawsuit against Walmart for alleged violations of the Controlled Substances Act.Investors who owned Walmart stock during the relevant period filed a putative securities fraud class action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. They alleged that Walmart’s public filings failed to adequately disclose the government investigation, violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that Walmart’s statements about its “reasonably possible” liabilities and compliance with accounting rules (ASC 450) were misleading. The District Court granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss, finding no actionable misrepresentation or omission, and denied plaintiffs’ request to further amend their complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Walmart’s omission of the investigation from its disclosures before June 4, 2018, was not misleading because the investigation did not constitute a “reasonably possible” material liability at that stage. After June 4, 2018, Walmart’s disclosures sufficiently informed investors about the existence and potential impact of government investigations. The court also found no violation of ASC 450 and affirmed the District Court’s denial of leave to amend, concluding that further amendment would be futile. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims. View "In re Walmart Inc. Securities Litigation" on Justia Law

Robinhood Markets, Inc., an online brokerage firm, experienced a surge in business during early 2021 due to increased trading in “meme stocks” and Dogecoin. This activity declined sharply in the second quarter of 2021, leading to significant drops in key financial metrics and performance indicators. In July 2021, Robinhood conducted an initial public offering (IPO) and issued a registration statement that included limited information about its second-quarter performance. After the IPO, Robinhood released its full second-quarter results, which revealed substantial declines and led to a drop in its stock price. Plaintiffs, representing a class of investors, alleged that Robinhood’s registration statement omitted material information about these declines, violating Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. The district court found that Robinhood and its co-defendants were not liable under the Securities Act for failing to disclose the pre-IPO declines in key performance indicators and certain revenue sources. The court also held that there was no actionable omission regarding the increased percentage of Robinhood’s revenue attributable to speculative trading.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court applied incorrect legal standards to the plaintiffs’ theories under Section 11’s “misleading” prong and Item 303 of Regulation S-K. The appellate court clarified that, in this context, Sections 11 and 12 require disclosure of all material information, and rejected the “extreme departure” test used by the district court. The court vacated the dismissal as to these theories and remanded for further proceedings. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claim based on Item 105 of Regulation S-K, finding no duty to provide a breakdown of revenue sources for the relevant period. View "Sodha v. Golubowski" on Justia Law

Investors in a major drug-development company alleged that the company and two of its officers misled them about the integrity of the company’s overseas supply chain for long-tailed macaques, which are essential for its business. After China halted exports of these monkeys due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the company shifted to suppliers in Cambodia and Vietnam, some of which were later implicated in a federal investigation into illegal wildlife trafficking. Despite public signs of the investigation and seizures of shipments, the company’s CEO assured investors that its supply chain was unaffected by the federal indictment of certain suppliers, and that the indicted supplier was not one of its own. However, evidence suggested that the company was, in fact, sourcing macaques from entities targeted by the investigation, either directly or through intermediaries.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the investors’ class action complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any false or misleading statements or scienter (intent or recklessness), and therefore did not reach the issue of loss causation. The court also dismissed the derivative claim against the individual officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the investors plausibly alleged that the company and its CEO knowingly or recklessly misled investors in November 2022 by assuring them that the company’s supply chain was not implicated in the federal investigation, when in fact it was. The court found these statements actionable, but agreed with the lower court that other statements about “non-preferred vendors” were not independently misleading. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal as to the November 2022 statements and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of loss causation. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio v. Charles River Laboratories International, Inc." on Justia Law

Two individuals who frequently rented hotel rooms on the Las Vegas Strip brought a class action lawsuit, alleging that several major hotel operators and related entities caused them to pay artificially high prices for hotel rooms. The plaintiffs claimed that these hotels each entered into agreements to license revenue-management software from a single provider, Cendyn, whose products generated pricing recommendations based on proprietary algorithms. The software did not require hotels to follow its recommendations, nor did it share confidential information among the hotels. Plaintiffs alleged that, after the hotels adopted this software, room prices increased.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada reviewed the complaint, which asserted two claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The first claim alleged a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy among the hotels to adopt and follow the software’s pricing recommendations, but the district court dismissed this claim for failure to plausibly allege an agreement among the hotels. The plaintiffs later abandoned their appeal of this claim. The second claim alleged that the aggregate effect of the individual licensing agreements between each hotel and Cendyn resulted in anticompetitive effects, specifically higher prices. The district court dismissed this claim as well, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege a restraint of trade in the relevant market.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because the independent decisions by competing hotels to license the same pricing software, without an agreement among them or a restraint imposed by the software provider, did not constitute a restraint of trade. The court concluded that neither the terms nor the operation of the licensing agreements imposed anticompetitive restraints in the market for hotel-room rentals on the Las Vegas Strip. View "Gibson v. Cendyn Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Between 2017 and 2020, a major energy company and its senior executives allegedly orchestrated a large-scale bribery scheme, funneling approximately $60 million to key Ohio political figures and regulators through a network of shell companies and political action committees. In exchange, the company secured favorable legislation (Ohio House Bill 6), which provided substantial financial benefits, including a $2 billion bailout for its nuclear power plants. The scheme was concealed from shareholders and the public, with the company issuing public statements and regulatory filings that failed to disclose the true nature and risks of its political activities. When the bribery was exposed in 2020, the company’s stock and debt securities plummeted, resulting in significant losses for investors.After the scheme was revealed, investors filed multiple class actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which were consolidated. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, specifically section 10(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5, claiming that the company and its executives made material misstatements and omissions that artificially inflated the value of its securities. The district court denied motions to dismiss and later certified a class of investors, holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to a presumption of reliance under Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, and that their damages methodology satisfied the predominance requirement for class certification.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the class certification order. The court held that the district court erred in applying the Affiliated Ute presumption of reliance because the case was primarily based on misrepresentations, not omissions. The Sixth Circuit established a framework for distinguishing between omission- and misrepresentation-based cases and clarified that the Affiliated Ute presumption applies only if a case is primarily based on omissions. The court also found that the district court failed to conduct the required “rigorous analysis” of the plaintiffs’ damages methodology under Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. The Sixth Circuit vacated the class certification order to the extent it relied on the Affiliated Ute presumption and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp." on Justia Law

A group of institutional investors brought a class action lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company and several of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws after the company’s share price dropped significantly following the rejection of a takeover bid and subsequent negative financial disclosures. One large investor, Sculptor, intended to pursue its own individual lawsuit rather than participate in the class action. The District Court certified the class and issued a notice specifying the procedure and deadline for class members to opt out. Although Sculptor intended to opt out, its counsel failed to submit the required exclusion request by the deadline. Both Sculptor and the company proceeded for years as if Sculptor had opted out, litigating the individual action and treating Sculptor as an opt-out plaintiff.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey later approved a class settlement, which prompted the discovery that Sculptor had never formally opted out. Sculptor then sought to be excluded from the class after the deadline, arguing that its conduct showed a reasonable intent to opt out, that its failure was due to excusable neglect, and that the class notice was inadequate. The District Court rejected these arguments, finding that only compliance with the court’s specified opt-out procedure sufficed, that Sculptor’s neglect was not excusable under the relevant legal standard, and that the notice met due process requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Third Circuit held that a class member must follow the opt-out procedures established by the district court under Rule 23; a mere “reasonable indication” of intent to opt out is insufficient. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Sculptor’s late opt-out request and concluded that the class notice satisfied due process. View "Perrigo Institutional Investor Group v. Papa" on Justia Law

A group of federally funded health centers and clinics serving low-income populations alleged that several major drug manufacturers conspired to restrict drug discounts offered through the federal Section 340B Drug Discount Program. The plaintiffs claimed that, beginning in 2020, the manufacturers coordinated efforts to limit the availability of discounted diabetes medications at contract pharmacies, resulting in significant financial losses for safety-net providers. The manufacturers, who are direct competitors in the diabetes drug market, allegedly implemented similar policies within a short timeframe, each restricting or eliminating the discounts in ways that had a comparable anticompetitive effect.After the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed their first amended complaint and denied leave to file a second amended complaint. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient parallel conduct or factual circumstances suggesting a conspiracy, and thus found the proposed amendments futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and applied a de novo standard to both the dismissal and the denial of leave to amend. The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint alleged enough facts to plausibly infer a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court found that the complaint sufficiently pled both parallel conduct and “plus factors” such as a common motive to conspire, actions against individual economic self-interest, and a high level of interfirm communications. The court also determined that Supreme Court precedents cited by the defendants did not bar the plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to file their second amended complaint. View "Mosaic Health, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC" on Justia Law