Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order granting class certification in this action brought by Letha's Pies, LLC and Rhonda and Timothy Glenn, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (collectively, Letha's Pies), for alleged violations of the Arkansas Securities Act, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to enforce a class-action waiver.Letha's Pies entered into a merchant agreement to sell Funding Metrics, LLC $21,900 of Letha's Pies' future receivables in exchange for an immediate payment of $15,000 by Funding Metrics. The agreement contained a class-action waiver provision. Letha's Pies subsequently brought a class-action complaint claiming that Funding Metrics promoted and sold securities in violation of Arkansas law. Funding Metrics moved to dismiss based on the class-action waiver. The circuit court denied the request, finding that the agreement lacked mutuality of obligation. The circuit court then certified two classes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to enforce the class-action waiver in the merchant agreement as a bar to class certification. View "Funding Metrics, LLC v. Letha's Pies, LLC" on Justia Law

Leslie Murphy, a former shareholder of Covisint Corporation, brought an action against Samuel Inman, III and other former Covisint directors, alleging they breached their statutory and common-law fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff when Covisint entered into a cash-out merger agreement with OpenText Corporation in 2017. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff lacked standing because his claim was derivative in nature and he did not satisfy the requirements for bringing a derivative shareholder action under MCL 450.1493a. Plaintiff responded that he was permitted to bring a direct shareholder action under MCL 450.1541a, and that defendants owed common-law fiduciary duties to plaintiff as a shareholder. The trial court granted defendants’ motion, ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to bring a direct shareholder action because he could not demonstrate an injury to himself without showing injury to the corporation, nor could he show harm separate and distinct from that of other Covisint shareholders. The court also rejected plaintiff’s common-law theory because it arose out of the same alleged injury as his statutory claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, however, finding that a shareholder who alleges the directors of the target corporation breached their fiduciary duties owed to the shareholder in handling a cash-out merger could bring that claim as a direct shareholder action. The Court of Appeals erred by concluding that plaintiff’s claim was derivative. View "Murphy v. Inman" on Justia Law

Astec sold its first wood-pellet plant to Hazlehurst in 2013, providing $60 million in financing. In 2015, Astec sold its second wood-pellet plant to Highland for $152.5 million. Highland required the plant to pass a “Reliability Run” by April 2018; otherwise, Astec was to refund the purchase price. Astec did not inform its investors of this clawback provision. Both plants failed to perform. Astec CEO Brock repeatedly told investors that everything was progressing well. In 2017, Astec issued a press release that described the issues occurring at the wood-pellet plants. Brock asserted that Astec had just discovered the design flaws and still had a rosy outlook. The plants’ performance never improved. During secret negotiations with Highland, Brock reassured investors but was aware of inspection results. In 2018, Astec filed a Form 10-K, reporting the possibility that Astec would have to refund the Highland purchase price. Brock sold his Astec stock, earning $3.2 million. Days later, Astec filed its quarterly 10-Q Form, publicly disclosing Highland’s clawback provision. Brock announced Astec’s decision to “exit” the Highland plant. Astec’s stock price dropped 20%, A subsequent poor earnings report drove the stock price further down.Investors filed a securities-fraud action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that plaintiffs had not met the heightened pleading requirements of FRCP 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part. The plaintiffs pleaded plausible claims against Astec and Brock but have abandoned or forfeited their claims against the other individual defendants. View "City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

The DC Circuit denied petitions for review of petitioners' applications for whistleblower awards resulting from a successful SEC enforcement action. The court concluded that the SEC properly denied petitioners' award applications under its reasonable and longstanding interpretation of the relevant regulation, which sets forth three scenarios allowing for the issuance of a whistleblower award—none of which encompasses the additional scenario proposed by petitioners. In this case, the SEC's interpretation reflects it authoritative and official position; the interpretation implicates the Commission's substantive expertise in implementing the whistleblower program; and the SEC's reading reflects its fair and considered judgment. Therefore, given that the text of Rule 21F-4(c) is genuinely ambiguous, the SEC’s interpretation is entitled to deference pursuant to the interpretive guideposts announced by the Supreme Court in Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2415–16 (2019). The court also concluded that petitioners' additional arguments are either forfeited or meritless. View "Doe v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

In June 2017, Google engineers alerted Intel’s management to security vulnerabilities affecting Intel’s microprocessors. Intel management formed a “Problem Response Team” but made no public disclosures. In January 2018, media reports described the security vulnerabilities. Intel acknowledged the vulnerabilities, and management’s prior knowledge of them. Intel’s stock price dropped. Tola filed a shareholder derivative complaint, alleging that certain Intel officers and directors breached fiduciary duties. After obtaining records from Intel, Tola filed a third amended complaint, alleging that certain officers “knowingly disregarded industry best practices, material risks to the Company’s reputation and customer base, and their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty … the Board of Directors willfully failed to exercise its fundamental authority and duty to govern Company management and establish standards and controls.”The trial court dismissed, concluding that Tola failed to allege, with the requisite particularity, that it was futile to make a pre-suit demand on Intel’s board of directors. The court of appeal affirmed. Tola does not support his conclusory allegations with sufficient particularized facts that support an inference of bad faith. At most, Tola alleged that two directors received a material personal benefit from alleged insider trading, which still leaves an impartial board majority to consider a demand. View "Tola v. Bryant" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a securities fraud lawsuit against Twitter under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, alleging that Twitter misled investors by hiding the scope of software bugs that hampered its advertisement customization. The panel concluded that securities laws do not require real-time business updates or complete disclosure of all material information whenever a company speaks on a particular topic. Rather, a company can speak selectively about its business so long as its statements do not paint a misleading picture. In this case, Twitter's statements about its advertising program were not false or misleading because they were qualified and factually true, and the company had no duty to disclose any more than it did under federal securities law. View "Weston Family Partnership LLLP v. Twitter, Inc." on Justia Law

In this residential mortgage-backed securities case, the Court of Appeals held that the contractual "sole remedy repurchase protocol" required that a trustee (Plaintiff) provide loan-specific pre-suit notice in order to invoke a sponsor's (Defendant) repurchase obligation and satisfy the contractual prerequisite to suit. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims, arguing that the trustee could not pursue recovery for loans not specifically identified in pre-suit letters to the extent the trustee relied on a notice rather than an independent discovery theory. Defendant further sought summary judgment with respect to the method of calculation of the repurchase price. Supreme Court denied the motion, and the appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff could not seek recovery on the subject loans to the extent it asserted that Defendant's repurchase obligation was triggered by notice; (2) Plaintiff could not rely on the relation back doctrine to avoid the consequences of its failure to comply with the contractual condition precedent with respect to the loans in question before commencing this action; and (3) interest recoverable on liquidated loans was limited to interest that accrued prior to liquidation. View "U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

In March 2012, First Solar, Inc. stockholders filed a class action lawsuit against the company alleging that it violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading public disclosures ("Smilovits Action"). National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”) provided insurance coverage for the Smilovits Action under a 2011–12 $10 million “claims made” directors and officers insurance policy. While the Smilovits Action was pending, First Solar stockholders who opted out of the Smilovits Action filed what has been referred to as the Maverick Action. The Maverick Action alleged violations of the same federal securities laws as the Smilovits Action, as well as violations of Arizona statutes and claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. In this appeal the issue presented for the Delaware Supreme Court's review was whether the Smilovits securities class action, and a later Maverick follow-on action were related actions, such that the follow-on action was excluded from insurance coverage under later-issued policies. The Superior Court found that the follow-on action was “fundamentally identical” to the first-filed action and therefore excluded from coverage under the later-issued policies. The Supreme Court found that even though the court applied an incorrect standard to assess the relatedness of the two actions, judgment was affirmed nonetheless because under either the erroneous “fundamentally identical” standard or the correct relatedness standard defined by the policies, the later-issued insurance policies did not cover the follow-on action. View "First Solar, Inc. v. National Union First Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Bristol-Myers's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in a securities class action brought by investors. This securities class action arose from a failed clinical trial conducted to ascertain whether a cancer drug in development would be more effective than chemotherapy in treating a specific type of lung cancer. The second amended complaint alleged that the drop in stock price was attributable to the study's failure, and that Bristol-Myers had obscured the risk of such failure by declining to disclose the precise PD-L1 expression threshold in cancer cells and by misrepresenting that the study focused on patients "strongly" expressing PD-L1.The court concluded that the investors failed to adequately allege a material misstatement or omission or facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter. In this case, rates of PDL1 expression remained a topic of research throughout the putative class period; there was no generally understood meaning of "strong" expression that contradicted Bristol-Myers’s use of the term to mean 5%; and some observers correctly predicted Bristol-Myers's use of a 5% threshold before it was publicly disclosed. Furthermore, the complaint alleges no facts indicating that Bristol-Myers had an obligation to disclose the precise threshold; Bristol-Myers cautioned the public that it would not do so; and the complaint fails to allege facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter. View "Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co." on Justia Law

The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act requires defendants convicted of certain crimes to reimburse their victims for “lost income and necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the offense,” 18 U.S.C. 3663A(b)(4). The Second Circuit previously held that “other expenses” could include attorneys’ fees incurred by victims while helping the government investigate and prosecute the defendant and costs incurred while privately investigating the defendant. The Supreme Court subsequently held that “the words ‘investigation’ and ‘proceedings’ are limited to government investigations and criminal proceedings.”Afriyie was convicted of securities fraud after trading on inside information he misappropriated from his employer, MSD. The district court entered the restitution order, covering the fees MSD paid its law firm to guide MSD’s compliance with investigations by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the SEC; to help prepare four MSD witnesses to testify at Afriyie’s criminal trial; and to represent MSD during the post-verdict restitution proceedings.The Second Circuit held that attorneys’ fees can sometimes be “other expenses” but a victim cannot recover expenses incurred while participating in an SEC investigation. Restitution is appropriate only for expenses associated with criminal matters; civil matters, including SEC investigations, even if closely related to a criminal case do not qualify. View "United States v. Afriyie" on Justia Law