Pharmaceutical and biotech companies, with proprietary and potentially lucrative products, have been popular targets for SPAC sponsors. Unfortunately, one such private equity sponsor may have its hands full after its managing partner was publicly named in a securities class action.
securities class action
Stumbling Through Securities Law Challenges for COVID-19 Vaccine Developers
By Mee (Rina) Kim on
As the world waits to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, publicly traded pharmaceutical companies waging in that fight are facing the multifaceted challenge of developing COVID-19 responses, informing the public of their progress, and managing legal challenges related to their efforts. Enter AstraZeneca.
AstraZeneca partnered with Oxford University to develop a COVID-19 vaccine in April 2020, which it later called “AZD1222.” On May 21, 2020, the company announced that the United States government was providing more than $1 billion for the development, production and delivery of the vaccine. Over the course of the next six months, the company continued to make public announcements on further financial support agreements and interim development results on its vaccine progress.
Shareholders Cannot Sue Corporate Officers for Forward-Looking Projections that Don’t Pan Out, Ninth Circuit Affirms
By Kelly Curtis on
It is illegal under the Securities Exchange Act to make false or misleading statements to the investing public about material facts. At the same time, corporations and their officers must be able to make statements about the company’s future plans, projections, and aspirations without fear of opening themselves up to claims of securities law liability should the company’s achievements fall short of its ambitions. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, therefore, has carved out a “safe harbor” for certain forward-looking statements, including forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, and forward-looking statements made by someone who does not know the statement to be false or misleading.
Cakes Gone Bad: The Cheesecake Factory Faces Securities Scrutiny
By Joseph Hartunian & Mee (Rina) Kim on
COVID-related securities claims continue to rattle the marketplace. On December 7, a leading plaintiffs firm announced an investigation on behalf of shareholders of The Cheesecake Factory Inc., just days after the SEC announced it was settling charges against the company for making misleading disclosures about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its business operations and financial condition. The SEC’s action was its first charging a public company for actions tied to the worldwide pandemic.
SolarWinds Government Data Breach Leads to Securities Action
By Brooke Gottlieb & Joseph Hartunian on
The massive data breach of the United States Commerce and Treasury Departments that has roiled the federal government has resulted in federal securities litigation. On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff-Shareholder Timothy Bremer filed a class action complaint against SolarWinds and SolarWinds’ corporate executives in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. SolarWinds provides information technology and infrastructure management software products to entities around the globe, including to various U.S. government vendors in the executive branch, military, and intelligence services. According to the complaint, Russian hackers gained access to government email traffic by deceptively interfering with software updates released by SolarWinds. The complaint alleges that SolarWinds violated federal securities law by making false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose material facts regarding SolarWinds’ cybersecurity practices and protocols, which artificially inflated the market price of SolarWinds’ shares. When news of the hack became public, the value of Solarwinds’ securities dropped, thereby producing an economic loss for investors within the class period of February 24, 2020 through December 15, 2020. The complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 against SolarWinds and its corporate executives, and for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the corporate executives.
Second Circuit Rejects Securities Claims Based on Generic Statements About Ethics and Compliance
By Jonathan Richman on
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit yesterday affirmed the dismissal of a securities class action alleging misrepresentations arising from generalized statements about an issuer’s compliance efforts and Code of Ethics. The decision in Singh v. Cigna Corporation held that such generic statements are not material because a reasonable investor could not have relied on them as representations of regulatory compliance.
Supreme Court Rules that State Courts can Adjudicate Class Actions Under the Securities Act of 1933
By Jonathan Richman on
On March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1998 amendments to the federal securities laws did not strip state courts of jurisdiction over class actions alleging violations of only the Securities Act of 1933. The Court further held that those amendments do not empower defendants to remove those…
Fourth Circuit Upholds Disclosure of Government Subpoena as Evidence of Loss Causation
By Jonathan Richman on
The Fourth Circuit ruled yesterday that a plaintiff can sufficiently plead loss causation to establish a securities-fraud claim based on an “amalgam” of two theories: corrective disclosure, and materialization of a concealed risk. In so holding, the court concluded in Singer v. Reali that the issuer’s disclosure of a government subpoena and an analyst’s report discussing that subpoena collectively revealed sufficient additional information to connect the company’s alleged misstatements and omissions to the subsequent 40% stock-price drop.
Because of the Fourth Circuit’s “amalgam” analysis, it is unclear whether and, if so, to what extent the Singer decision is in tension with decisions by other Courts of Appeals holding that disclosures of governmental investigations or internal investigations do not, without more, sufficiently establish loss causation for pleading purposes. Various appellate courts appear to be putting their own refinements on the analysis, and the law might not be entirely settled on this issue.