Seyfarth Synopsis: Two recent decisions on motions to dismiss in COVID-related class action securities litigations—one successfully dismissed, the other largely surviving—show that a bare allegation of failure to predict the...more
On December 3, 2020, the New York State Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department dismissed an action alleging claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) in Lyu v. Ruhnn Holdings Limited....more
12/9/2020
/ Business Model ,
Cyan Inc v Beaver Cty Emps Ret Fund ,
Initial Public Offering (IPO) ,
Jurisdiction ,
Material Misstatements ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Section 11 ,
Section 12 ,
Securities Act of 1933 ,
Securities Litigation
On September 1, 2020, the California Superior Court for San Mateo County granted Restoration Robotics, Inc. and certain individual defendants’ (collectively, “Restoration Robotics”) Motion for Reconsideration and Renewed...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Delaware Chancery Court’s October 1 In re Clovis decision marks the second time in 2019 that a Delaware court has permitted a Caremark duty-to-monitor derivative claim against directors—considered...more
11/1/2019
/ Caremark claim ,
Clinical Trials ,
Compliance Management Systems ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Derivative Suit ,
Directors ,
Duty to Monitor ,
Failure to Monitor ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Shareholder Litigation