WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court should deny a request by an ex-employee asserting a retaliatory discharge claim against brokerage companies to grant review of lower courts’ exclusion of her expert witness because “further review on this fact-bound, splitless, and correct conclusion is unnecessary,” the companies tell the high court justices in their July 29 response (Jackie Hosang Lawson v. FMR LLC, et al., No. 19-2, U.S. Sup., 2019 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2904).
CINCINNATI — A Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 31 denied a petition for leave to appeal filed by defendants in a securities class action lawsuit, ruling that a federal district court did not err in certifying a class of investors (In re: Quorum Health Corp., et al., No. 19-0505, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22923).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge in California on July 31 held that Tesla Inc. shareholders may not recover profits received by members of the company’s board of directors after a merger deal with a solar energy company because each of the defendants’ acquisitions of Tesla shares was with the issuer and because the transactions were approved by Tesla’s board (John A. Olagues, et al. v. Elon Musk, et al., No. 18-7110, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128074).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on April 16 granted the Securities and Exchange Commission’s motion for final judgment against a defendant in a securities fraud lawsuit stemming from an alleged investment fraud scheme, ordering a defendant to pay more than $148,000 as part of the judgment (United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. William C. Skelley, et al., No. 18-8803, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121104).
NEW YORK — An investor in a New York state court securities class action has failed to sufficiently state its claims for relief under the Securities Act of 1933 against a Brazilian online retailer, certain of its officers and directors and underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) because several of the alleged misrepresentations the defendants made were accurate statements or were protected statements of opinion, a New York justice ruled July 17 (In re Netshoes Securities Litigation, No. 157435/2018, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3909).
NEW ORLEANS — Although a federal district court’s conviction and restitution order against the operator of a Ponzi scheme was correct, under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a vacating of the sentence and remand to state court is necessary because the district court’s sentencing guidelines calculation was off by a single point, a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled July 29 (United States v. Roberto Trinidad del Carpio Frescas, No. 17-50245, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22455).
TRENTON, N.J. — A group of shareholders on July 29 filed a class action in New Jersey federal court against the 3M Co. contending that it engaged in a scheme to defraud investors by issuing “false and misleading statements to conceal the truth” about 3M’s exposure to legal liability related to its products known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (Heavy & General Laborers’ Locals 472 & 172 Welfare Fund v. 3M Company, et al., No. 19-15982, D. N.J.).
NEW YORK — The lead plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit against restaurant chain Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. and certain of its senior executives failed to sufficiently show that a federal district court erred in denying their post-judgment motion for leave to amend their complaint, the defendants argue in a July 3 appellee brief filed in the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Metzler Investment GmbH, et al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., et al., No. 18-3807, 2nd Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 23 ruled that a federal district court did not err in dismissing a lead plaintiff’s federal securities law claims against a technology company and certain of its senior executives because the lead plaintiff failed to plead any actionable misstatements or omissions or loss causation in making its claims (Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Qualcomm Inc., et al., No. 18-55005, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21969).
LOS ANGELES — A shareholder of a specialty personal lines insurance holding company sued the company and two of its senior executives in California federal court on July 25, alleging that the defendants concealed their role in a massive automobile insurance scheme in coordination with Well Fargo Bank N.A. and Wells Fargo & Co. in violation of federal securities laws (City of North Miami Beach Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Retirement Plan v. National General Holdings Corp., et al., No. 19-6468, C.D. Calif.).
MINNEAPOLIS — A federal magistrate judge in Minnesota on July 25 ruled that lead plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit against a dental supply company and certain of its former executive officers failed to sufficiently show that a majority of the defendants violated provisions of federal securities law in alleging that they conspired with competitors to fix dental supply prices and boycott group purchasing options (GPOs) (Plymouth County Retirement System v. Patterson Companies Inc., et al., No. 18-871, D. Minn., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124014).
SAN FRANCISCO — A lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit against a drug company and three of its senior executives has failed to plead falsity and scienter in making his federal securities law claims, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled July 23 in affirming a lower court’s dismissal of the lead plaintiff’s second amended complaint (In re Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 17-56956, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21953).
SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook Inc. will pay $100 million to settle claims brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that the social media network violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of misrepresentations to investors concealing misuse of its user data by data analytics company Cambridge Analytica, according to court documents filed July 24 in California federal court (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Facebook Inc., No. 19-4241, N.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Supreme Court review of an alleged Ponzi scheme operator’s appeal of a federal circuit court’s upholding of a lower court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in a securities lawsuit is warranted because the appellate court erred holding that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act extended the scope of provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a group of securities law scholars argue in a July 22 brief as amicus curiae filed in the Supreme Court (Charles D. Scoville v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 18-1566, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Internet entertainment services provider Netflix Inc. and two of its senior executives were hit with a shareholder class action lawsuit on July 22 in California federal court alleging that the defendants provided investors with subscriber forecasts for the second quarter of 2019 that the company knew it wouldn’t be able to reach in violation of federal securities laws (Johan Wallerstein v. Netflix Inc., et al., No. 19-4195, N.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — Lead plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit against a Chinese express delivery company and others have failed to sufficiently show that the defendants issued any material misrepresentations or omissions in the offering documents for the company’s initial public offering (IPO) in violation of federal securities laws, a federal judge in New York ruled July 17 (Rustem Nurlybayev v. ZTO Express [Cayman] Inc., et al., No. 17-6130, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119061).
NEW YORK — A Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 18 upheld the conviction of former pharmaceutical company CEO and hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli on charges that he bilked investors of millions of dollars in investments (United States v. Martin Shkreli, et al., No. 18-819-cr, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21248).
NEW ORLEANS — A federal district court did not err in dismissing federal securities law claims brought by investors of an oil company because the investors failed to sufficiently plead any material misrepresentations or omissions or scienter in making their claims, a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled in affirming on July 16 in an unpublished opinion (Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline L.P., et al., No. 18-20286, 5th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on July 12 ruled that lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against a multinational building materials company and two of its senior executives have failed to sufficiently state a claim for relief in alleging that the defendants concealed the company’s involvement in a bribery scheme with a Columbian company in violation of federal securities laws (Christopher Schiro v. Cemex S.A.B. de C.V., et al., No. 18-2352, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116725).
NEW YORK — A shareholder of a semiconductor company on July 10 sued the company and its board of directors in New York federal court, alleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws in issuing a proxy statement for a proposed merger deal that contained incomplete and misleading information (Rachel Salpeter-Levy v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 19-6369, S.D. N.Y.).