Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

Funko, Inc., a company specializing in pop culture collectibles, experienced a significant decline in its share price after writing off millions of dollars in unsellable inventory. Shareholders who purchased Funko stock during the relevant period alleged that Funko and its key officers misled investors about the progress of relocating to a new warehouse, the quality and management of inventory, the status of its information technology upgrades, and its distribution capabilities. The plaintiffs claimed that these misrepresentations led them to buy stock at artificially inflated prices. The period in question was marked by Funko's transition to a larger distribution center and a planned upgrade of its enterprise resource planning software, both of which encountered serious operational difficulties that impacted inventory management and order fulfillment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege falsity and scienter—a necessary intent to mislead investors or recklessness to the risk of doing so. The district court found that most of the challenged statements were either not objectively false, constituted non-actionable puffery, or were protected as forward-looking statements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s safe harbor.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part. The Ninth Circuit held that while Funko’s affirmative statements about the distribution center operations, inventory quality, and distribution capabilities were not demonstrably false or actionable, certain risk disclosures in Funko’s SEC filings regarding inventory management and its use of existing information technology systems were misleading. The court found that these risk disclosures implied the risks were merely hypothetical when, in fact, they had already materialized. The court also found sufficient allegations of scienter, concluding that senior officers likely knew their statements were misleading. The court reversed the dismissal of claims related to those disclosures and remanded for further proceedings. View "Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko, Inc." on Justia Law

Several shareholders of Paya Holdings, Inc.—who were originally sponsors of a special purpose acquisition company that merged with Paya—held “Earnout Shares” subject to contractual transfer restrictions. Under the Sponsor Support Agreement (“SSA”), these shares could not be transferred until October 2025 unless a “Change in Control” occurred and the price per share exceeded $15.00. If the price was below $15.00, the Earnout Shares would be automatically forfeited prior to consummation of the change. In January 2023, Nuvei Corporation agreed to purchase all Paya shares for $9.75 per share in a tender offer. The offer required that tendered shares be freely transferable. The appellants attempted to tender their Earnout Shares, but Nuvei rejected them, citing the SSA’s restrictions.The shareholders sued Nuvei in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Nuvei violated the SEC’s Best Price Rule, which requires the highest consideration paid to any shareholder in a tender offer to be paid to all shareholders of that class. The District Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim, reasoning that no consideration was actually paid to the appellants because their shares were not validly tendered due to the transfer restrictions.On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The Third Circuit held that the Best Price Rule does not require a tender offeror to purchase shares that are subject to self-imposed transfer restrictions. The Rule mandates equal payment only for shares “taken up and paid for” pursuant to a tender offer, and it is silent regarding whether offerors must accept all tendered shares. Therefore, Nuvei was not required to purchase the appellants’ restricted shares, and dismissal of their claim was proper. View "Abramowski v. Nuvei Corp" on Justia Law

Harman International Industries was acquired by Samsung Electronics in a reverse triangular merger, after which a class of former Harman shareholders filed a federal securities lawsuit alleging that disclosures made in connection with the transaction were misleading and violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The shareholders claimed they were deprived of a fully informed vote and the full value of their shares, seeking damages equal to the difference between the merger price and Harman’s true value. The parties settled the suit for $28 million, which was distributed to a class defined as shareholders who held Harman stock at any time during the relevant period, including some who did not receive merger consideration.Harman sought coverage for the $28 million settlement under its Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance policies with Illinois National Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company, and Berkley Insurance Company. The insurers denied coverage, invoking a “Bump-Up Provision” that excluded settlements representing an effective increase in deal consideration for claims alleging inadequate consideration in an acquisition. Harman sued the insurers for breach of contract in the Delaware Superior Court. After initial motions were denied due to insufficient facts, both sides moved for summary judgment on the applicability of the Bump-Up Provision.The Delaware Superior Court held that the Bump-Up Provision did not exclude coverage because the underlying complaint did not allege inadequate consideration as a viable remedy, and the settlement amount did not represent an effective increase in deal consideration. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, holding that although the complaint did allege inadequate consideration, the insurers failed to prove the settlement amount effectively increased the deal consideration. Thus, the $28 million settlement was covered under Harman’s policies. View "Illinois National Insurance Company and Federal Insurance Company v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated" on Justia Law

Alliance Data Systems, a company based in Columbus, Ohio, faced mounting debt and responded by selling off side businesses, including spinning off its LoyaltyOne division into a standalone company called Loyalty Ventures Inc. Prior to and during the spinoff, executives publicly described LoyaltyOne’s Canadian AIR MILES program as having strong, long-term sponsor relationships. However, in the period leading up to and following the spinoff, AIR MILES lost several major sponsors, including its second largest, Sobeys, which announced its intention to exit the program shortly before the sponsor’s contract allowed. Loyalty’s financial condition deteriorated, leading to its bankruptcy about a year and a half after the spinoff.Investors, specifically two funds managed by Newtyn Management, brought a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. They alleged that Alliance Data Systems and individual executives committed securities fraud by making misleading statements or omissions about AIR MILES’s sponsor relationships and LoyaltyOne’s financial health, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that Newtyn had not adequately alleged any actionable misrepresentation or omission, nor had it sufficiently pled that the defendants acted with scienter (intent to defraud).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the statements cited by Newtyn were either immaterial puffery, accurate historical statements, or accompanied by sufficient cautionary language such that no reasonable investor would have been misled. The court also determined that Newtyn failed to plead a strong inference of scienter and that its related scheme liability and control person claims could not survive absent a primary violation. The judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed. View "Newtyn Partners, LP v. Alliance Data Systems Corp." on Justia Law

Under Armour, a publicly traded sports apparel company, faced significant legal claims and government investigations over its financial forecasts and accounting practices following the bankruptcy of a major customer, Sports Authority, in 2016. Shareholders alleged that Under Armour made misleading public statements about its financial prospects and that company insiders sold stock at inflated prices. These allegations led to a federal securities class action, derivative demands, and eventually an SEC investigation into whether Under Armour manipulated its accounting by pulling forward revenue to maintain the appearance of strong growth.In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Under Armour’s insurers sought a declaratory judgment, arguing that the securities litigation, derivative actions, and government investigations constituted a single claim under the terms of Under Armour’s directors and officers insurance policies and therefore were subject only to the coverage limit of the earlier policy period. Under Armour countered that the government investigations were a separate claim, entitling it to an additional $100 million in coverage under a subsequent policy. The district court sided with Under Armour, finding that the government investigations and the earlier shareholder claims were not sufficiently related to constitute a single claim under the policy’s language.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that, under the plain meaning of the 2017–2018 insurance policy’s “single claims” provision, the claims related to Under Armour’s public financial statements and its accounting practices were “logically or causally related” and thus constituted a single claim. As a result, only the coverage limits from the earlier, 2016–2017 policy period applied. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of Under Armour. View "Navigators Insurance Co. v. Under Armour, Inc." on Justia Law

Several individuals orchestrated microcap securities fraud schemes by creating nineteen shell companies with no genuine business operations or assets, selling their securities at inflated prices once publicly tradable. Two firms, operated by Carl Dilley and Micah Eldred—Spartan Securities Group, Ltd. (a broker-dealer) and Island Capital Management (a transfer agent)—facilitated this process. Spartan submitted Form 211 applications to FINRA for each shell company, enabling public trading, while Island managed applications for Depository Trust Company (DTC) eligibility. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against Dilley, Eldred, Spartan, and Island, alleging, among other claims, that they made false statements to obtain FINRA clearance and DTC eligibility, violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5(b).The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the defendants’ pretrial motions to exclude the SEC’s expert witness and for special jury interrogatories, and allowed the case to proceed to trial. The jury found all defendants liable on the count concerning false statements or omissions under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b. The district court subsequently denied the defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law, and imposed remedies including injunctions against future violations, penny stock bars, civil penalties, and ordered Island to disgorge profits to the U.S. Treasury.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the defendants challenged the admission of expert testimony, denial of judgment as a matter of law, and the remedies imposed. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of material misrepresentations made in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. The court further held that the SEC was authorized to seek disgorgement to the Treasury and that the remedies, including civil penalties, were timely and equitable. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Spartan Securities Group, LTD" on Justia Law

A businessman from Kazakhstan alleged that he was wrongfully detained and psychologically coerced by the country’s National Security Committee into signing unfavorable business agreements, including waivers of legal claims and a forced transfer of valuable company shares. The business at issue, CAPEC, operated in Kazakhstan’s energy sector and held significant assets, some of which were allegedly misappropriated by fellow shareholders and transferred through U.S. financial institutions. The plaintiff claimed these actions harmed him economically, including the loss of potential U.S.-based legal claims.Following unsuccessful litigation in Kazakhstan, the plaintiff initiated suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking to invalidate the coerced agreements and recover damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Alien Tort Statute, and other state and federal laws. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiff, as a permanent resident alien, could not establish diversity jurisdiction against foreign defendants, that the alleged torts occurred outside the U.S., and that the plaintiff failed to allege a domestic injury required for civil RICO claims. The court denied leave to amend, determining that any amendment would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the matter de novo, affirming the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that claims against the National Security Committee were barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, as its conduct was sovereign rather than commercial. For the individual defendants, the court found that the plaintiff failed to allege a domestic injury under RICO, as the harm and racketeering activity occurred primarily in Kazakhstan. The court further concluded that amendment of the complaint would have been futile. The judgment was affirmed. View "Yerkyn v. Yakovlevich" on Justia Law

On February 5, 2018, an abrupt spike in market volatility led to a sharp decline in the S&P 500 and a rapid increase in the VIX index. LJM Partners, Ltd. and Two Roads Shared Trust pursued trading strategies on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange that assumed low volatility and suffered catastrophic losses when volatility soared. They alleged that several market makers manipulated the VIX by quoting inflated bid-ask prices for certain options, which artificially increased volatility and caused losses exceeding one billion dollars in managed assets over two days.Both LJM and Two Roads filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, initially naming “John Doe” defendants. The cases were coordinated into multidistrict litigation, and the plaintiffs sought expedited discovery to identify the defendants. After extensive litigation, they amended their complaints to name eight firms as defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss. The district court found that LJM lacked Article III standing, as its complaint only alleged injuries suffered by its clients, not by LJM itself. The court denied LJM’s request for leave to substitute the real party in interest and dismissed its complaint without prejudice. For Two Roads, the court found that its claims were barred by the Commodity Exchange Act’s two-year statute of limitations, declined to apply equitable tolling, and also dismissed for failure to state a claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that LJM did not allege a concrete injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing, as its complaint failed to distinguish between its own losses and those of its clients. The court also held that Two Roads’s complaint was untimely and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable tolling. The court declined to reach the merits of the underlying Commodity Exchange Act claims. View "Two Roads Shared Trust v. Barclays Capital Inc." on Justia Law

LJM Partners, Ltd. and Two Roads Shared Trust, both involved in options trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, experienced catastrophic losses on February 5 and 6, 2018, when volatility in the S&P 500 surged unexpectedly; LJM lost approximately 86.5% of its managed assets and the Preservation Fund (managed by Two Roads) lost around 80%. The plaintiffs alleged that eight defendant firms, acting as market makers, manipulated the VIX index by submitting inflated bid-ask quotes for certain SPX Options, which artificially raised volatility and resulted in inflated prices on the plaintiffs' trades, causing over one billion dollars in combined losses.After initially filing complaints against unnamed "John Doe" defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the plaintiffs pursued extensive discovery to identify the responsible parties. The cases were swept into a multidistrict litigation proceeding (VIX MDL), which delayed discovery. Eventually, after several rounds of amended complaints, the plaintiffs identified and named eight defendant firms. The defendants moved to dismiss. The district court found that LJM lacked Article III standing because it failed to allege an injury in fact, as the losses belonged to its clients, not LJM itself. For Two Roads, the district court held that its claims were time-barred under the Commodity Exchange Act’s two-year statute of limitations, and equitable tolling was denied due to lack of diligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that LJM’s complaint failed to establish Article III standing, as it did not allege that LJM itself—not just its clients—suffered actual losses. The court further held that Two Roads’s complaint was untimely and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing equitable tolling. Both dismissals were affirmed. View "LJM Partners, Ltd. v. Barclays Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

An individual who founded a Michigan biomedical research company sold a majority stake in 2019 to four defendants but retained a minority interest, later becoming dissatisfied with the company’s management and moving out of state. The new owners aimed to expand the company but withheld information from the plaintiff about their efforts to secure financing, including discussions with Avista Capital Partners, a venture capital firm that ultimately made a large investment. The plaintiff sold his shares in December 2020 for a price based on an annual valuation, prior to Avista’s capital infusion that significantly increased the company’s value. The plaintiff later sued, alleging violations of federal and state securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty under Michigan law, and various fraud and contract claims based on the defendants’ failure to disclose material facts about the company’s pursuit of equity financing and Avista’s interest.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. That court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss but, following discovery, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts. The court concluded that the omissions were not material under federal securities law and, applying Delaware law and a federal standard, also found no materiality for the breach of fiduciary duty claim under Michigan law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment as to the federal securities law claims, the Michigan Uniform Securities Act claim, and the contract-based claims, holding that the omissions were not material under the applicable federal standards. However, the Sixth Circuit reversed the summary judgment for the Michigan common-law fiduciary duty and fraud claims, finding the district court had applied an incorrect legal standard and that genuine disputes of material fact remained. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the fiduciary duty and fraud counts. View "Boyd v. Northern Biomedical Research Inc." on Justia Law