Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a former CEO of a brand-management company who was prosecuted for allegedly orchestrating a scheme to inflate company revenues through secret “overpayments-for-givebacks” deals with a business partner. The government alleged that the CEO arranged for the partner to pay inflated prices for joint ventures, with a secret understanding that the excess would be returned later, thereby allowing the company to report higher revenues to investors. The CEO was also accused of making false filings with the SEC and improperly influencing audits. The central factual dispute was whether the CEO actually made these undisclosed agreements.In 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held a jury trial. The jury acquitted the CEO of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, make false SEC filings, and interfere with audits, but could not reach a verdict on the substantive charges, resulting in a mistrial on those counts. The government retried the CEO in 2022 on the substantive counts, and the second jury convicted him on all charges. The CEO moved to bar the retrial, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded it because the first jury’s acquittal necessarily decided factual issues essential to the government’s case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the first jury’s acquittal on the conspiracy charge necessarily decided that the CEO did not make the alleged secret agreements, which was a factual issue essential to the substantive charges. Because the government’s case at the second trial depended on proving those same secret agreements, the Double Jeopardy Clause’s issue-preclusion doctrine barred the retrial. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, vacated the CEO’s convictions, and ordered dismissal of the indictment. View "United States v. Cole" on Justia Law

A group of investors who purchased American Depository Shares in a Spanish engineering and construction company alleged that the company manipulated its financial records to conceal a liquidity crisis, which ultimately led to its bankruptcy. The investors claimed that the company’s registration statement for its U.S. offering contained false statements about its accounting practices, specifically regarding the use of the percentage-of-completion method for recognizing revenue. They also alleged that company executives and underwriters were involved in or responsible for these misrepresentations. The complaint relied on information from confidential witnesses and findings from Spanish criminal proceedings and regulatory investigations, which described widespread accounting fraud and the deliberate inflation of project revenues.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the investors’ claims under both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The district court found the Securities Act claims untimely under the one-year statute of limitations and concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim under either statute. The court also denied leave to amend the Exchange Act claims against the company’s former CEO, finding that such amendment would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and held that the Securities Act claims were timely because the relevant “storm warning” triggering the statute of limitations occurred later than the district court had found. The appellate court also held that the complaint adequately stated claims under both the Securities Act and the Exchange Act against the company, crediting the detailed allegations from confidential witnesses and Spanish proceedings. However, the court affirmed the denial of leave to amend the Exchange Act claims against the former CEO, finding insufficient allegations of scienter. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. View "Sherman v. Abengoa, S.A." on Justia Law

The case concerns allegations by investors against a company that markets and sells organic and natural products, as well as several of its current and former executives. The investors claim that, during a specified period, the company engaged in “channel stuffing”—offering distributors significant incentives to purchase more product than they could sell, in order to meet financial projections. The investors allege that these practices were not adequately disclosed to the public or properly accounted for, and that the company made misleading statements about its financial health, internal controls, and compliance with accounting standards. The company later restated its financial results, admitted to deficiencies in its internal controls, and settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which did not bring charges but found violations of recordkeeping and internal control requirements.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York initially dismissed the investors’ complaint, finding that they had not sufficiently alleged that the defendants acted with scienter, or wrongful intent. After a prior appeal resulted in a remand for further consideration, the district court again dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter and actionable misstatements or omissions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the defendants made actionable misstatements and omissions regarding the company’s financial results, internal controls, and the use of channel stuffing. The court also found that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged scienter, loss causation, and control-person liability under the relevant securities laws. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The main holding is that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss and that the case should proceed. View "Gimpel v. Hain Celestial Group, 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

Several plaintiffs, including an individual, an investment fund, and a limited partnership, engaged in trading derivatives tied to the Sterling London Interbank Offered Rate (Sterling LIBOR). They alleged that a group of major banks conspired to manipulate Sterling LIBOR for their own trading advantage. The plaintiffs claimed that the banks coordinated false submissions to the rate-setting process, sometimes inflating and sometimes deflating the benchmark, which in turn affected the value of Sterling LIBOR-based derivatives. The plaintiffs asserted that this manipulation was orchestrated through internal and external communications among banks and with the help of inter-dealer brokers.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The district court found that two plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing because they were not “efficient enforcers” and had not transacted directly with the defendants, resulting in only indirect and remote damages. The court also determined that the third plaintiff, a limited partnership, lacked the capacity to sue and had not properly assigned its claims to a substitute entity. Additionally, the court found that one plaintiff failed to adequately plead specific intent for the CEA claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, but on a narrower ground. The Second Circuit held that none of the plaintiffs plausibly alleged actual injury under either the Sherman Act or the CEA. The court explained that because the alleged manipulation was multidirectional—sometimes raising and sometimes lowering Sterling LIBOR—the plaintiffs did not show that they suffered net harm as a result of the defendants’ conduct. Without specific allegations of transactions where they were harmed by the manipulation, the plaintiffs’ claims could not proceed. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed, and the cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Sonterra Cap. Master Fund, Ltd. v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

Armistice Capital, LLC and its client fund held warrants to purchase shares in Vaxart, Inc., a biotech company developing an oral COVID-19 vaccine. Stephen J. Boyd, Armistice’s Chief Investment Officer, served on Vaxart’s board. The warrants included “blocker provisions” limiting Armistice’s ownership to 4.99% and 9.99% of Vaxart’s shares. Boyd requested that Vaxart’s board amend these provisions to allow Armistice to own up to 19.99%. The board, with full knowledge that Boyd and another director were Armistice representatives, unanimously approved the amendment. Shortly after Vaxart announced its vaccine’s selection for a federal study, Armistice exercised the warrants and sold its shares, allegedly realizing an $87 million profit.Andrew E. Roth, a Vaxart shareholder, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that Armistice and Boyd, as statutory insiders, violated Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by engaging in a prohibited short-swing transaction. Roth sought disgorgement of the profits to Vaxart. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that even if a short-swing transaction occurred, they were exempt from liability under SEC Rule 16b-3(d) because the Vaxart board had approved the transaction with knowledge of all material facts. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the exemption applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The Second Circuit held that the exemption under SEC Rule 16b-3(d) applied because the transaction involved the acquisition of issuer equity securities by insiders, those insiders were directors at the time, and the transaction was approved in advance by the issuer’s board with full knowledge of the relevant relationships. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the defendants were exempt from Section 16(b) liability under Rule 16b-3(d). View "Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Investors who purchased shares of a fitness equipment company between February 2021 and January 2022 alleged that the company and several executives misled the public about the ongoing demand for its products and the state of its inventory following the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, demand for the company’s products surged, but plaintiffs claimed that by early 2021, demand had declined as gyms reopened. Plaintiffs asserted that the company concealed this decline and continued to assure investors that demand remained strong and that supply chain investments were necessary. Their allegations were supported by statements from numerous former employees who described declining sales, missed quotas, and growing excess inventory.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case after the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any actionable material misstatements or omissions. The court determined that most statements were either protected forward-looking statements, non-actionable puffery, or consistent with the company’s actual financial results. The court also found that the confidential witness accounts were anecdotal and did not reflect the company’s overall performance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that most of the challenged statements were not actionable, either because they were not materially false or misleading, or because they constituted non-actionable puffery. However, the Second Circuit found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged actionable misstatements or omissions regarding the company’s characterization of a price reduction as “absolutely offensive” and its risk disclosures about excess inventory in certain SEC filings, which may have been misleading because the risks had already materialized. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal as to these statements and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the dismissal of claims based on other statements. View "City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Peloton Interactive, Inc." on Justia Law

Ripple Analytics Inc. operated a software platform for human resources functions and originally owned the federal trademark for the word “RIPPLE®” in connection with its software. In April 2018, Ripple assigned all rights, title, and interest in its intellectual property, including the trademark, to its Chairman and CEO, Noah Pusey. Meanwhile, People Center, Inc. began using the name “RIPPLING” for similar software, though it abandoned its own trademark registration effort. Ripple later sued People Center for trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming ownership of the RIPPLE® mark.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York reviewed the case. During discovery, Ripple produced the assignment agreement showing that Pusey, not Ripple, owned the trademark. People Center moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, arguing Ripple was not the real party in interest. The district court dismissed Ripple’s trademark infringement claim with prejudice, dismissed its unfair competition claims without prejudice for lack of standing, and denied Ripple’s motion to amend its complaint, finding the proposed amendment futile because it did not resolve the standing issue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Ripple was not the real party in interest for the trademark infringement claim, as ownership had been assigned to Pusey, who failed to ratify or join the action. The court also held that Ripple lacked standing to pursue unfair competition claims under federal and state law, as it no longer had a commercial interest in the trademark. The denial of Ripple’s motion to amend was upheld because the amendment would not cure the standing defect. The court further found that the district court’s interlocutory order allowing People Center to amend its answer was not properly before it on appeal. View "Ripple Analytics Inc. v. People Center, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including an individual, a retirement fund, and several investment funds, traded derivatives based on the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor). They alleged that a group of banks and brokers conspired to manipulate Euribor, which affected the pricing of various over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, such as FX forwards, interest-rate swaps, and forward rate agreements. The alleged conduct included coordinated false submissions to set Euribor at artificial levels, collusion among banks and brokers, and structural changes within banks to facilitate manipulation. Plaintiffs claimed this manipulation harmed them by distorting the prices of their Euribor-based derivative transactions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and state common law, finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over all defendants. The district court also found that the RICO claims were based on extraterritorial conduct and did not meet the particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). It declined to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed that conspiracy-based personal jurisdiction was not established but held that two plaintiffs—Frontpoint Australian Opportunities Trust and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System—had established specific personal jurisdiction over UBS AG and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC for Sherman Act and RICO claims related to OTC Euribor derivative transactions in the United States. The court affirmed dismissal of the RICO claims for lack of particularity, but held that the Sherman Act claims were sufficiently pleaded. It vacated the district court’s refusal to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over state-law claims and remanded for further proceedings. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. View "Sullivan v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

Wildlife Preserves, Inc., a non-profit conservation organization, conveyed land comprising most of the Sunken Forest Preserve—a rare maritime holly forest on Fire Island, New York—to the United States government in the 1950s and 1960s. The deeds included restrictions requiring the land to be maintained in its natural state and operated as a preserve for wildlife, prohibiting activities such as hunting, trapping, and any actions that might adversely affect the environment or animal population. Over time, the National Park Service managed the property as part of the Fire Island National Seashore. In response to a significant increase in white-tailed deer, which threatened local flora and fauna, the government adopted a 2016 management plan involving exclusion fencing and deer population reduction within the Sunken Forest.Wildlife Preserves filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, arguing that the 2016 plan violated the deed restrictions and triggered a reversionary interest in the property under New York law. The district court denied Wildlife Preserves’ motion for summary judgment and granted the government’s cross-motion, holding that the suit was time-barred under the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations due to a prior fence constructed in 1967.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, but on alternative grounds. The court held that, under New York law, the 2016 management plan did not violate the deed restrictions. The court reasoned that the plan’s fencing and deer reduction measures were consistent with the requirement to maintain the land in its natural state and operate it as a wildlife preserve, and that the restrictions must be strictly construed against the grantor. Thus, summary judgment for the government was affirmed. View "Wildlife Preserves v. Romero" on Justia Law