Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Robinhood Markets, Inc., an online brokerage firm, experienced a surge in business during early 2021 due to increased trading in “meme stocks” and Dogecoin. This activity declined sharply in the second quarter of 2021, leading to significant drops in key financial metrics and performance indicators. In July 2021, Robinhood conducted an initial public offering (IPO) and issued a registration statement that included limited information about its second-quarter performance. After the IPO, Robinhood released its full second-quarter results, which revealed substantial declines and led to a drop in its stock price. Plaintiffs, representing a class of investors, alleged that Robinhood’s registration statement omitted material information about these declines, violating Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. The district court found that Robinhood and its co-defendants were not liable under the Securities Act for failing to disclose the pre-IPO declines in key performance indicators and certain revenue sources. The court also held that there was no actionable omission regarding the increased percentage of Robinhood’s revenue attributable to speculative trading.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court applied incorrect legal standards to the plaintiffs’ theories under Section 11’s “misleading” prong and Item 303 of Regulation S-K. The appellate court clarified that, in this context, Sections 11 and 12 require disclosure of all material information, and rejected the “extreme departure” test used by the district court. The court vacated the dismissal as to these theories and remanded for further proceedings. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claim based on Item 105 of Regulation S-K, finding no duty to provide a breakdown of revenue sources for the relevant period. View "Sodha v. Golubowski" on Justia Law

A pharmaceutical company developed a sublingual opioid painkiller, DSUVIA, which could only be administered in medically supervised settings due to safety concerns and was subject to a strict FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS). The company marketed DSUVIA with the slogan “Tongue and Done” at investor conferences, accompanied by additional disclosures about the drug’s limitations and REMS requirements. After the FDA issued a warning letter objecting to the slogan as potentially misleading under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, several shareholders filed suit, alleging that the slogan misled investors about the complexity of administering DSUVIA and the drug’s limited market potential.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the shareholders’ complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead facts supporting a strong inference of scienter, but did not rule on whether the statements were false or misleading. The plaintiffs were given two opportunities to amend their complaint, but the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity because a reasonable investor would not interpret the “Tongue and Done” slogan in isolation, but would consider the context provided by accompanying disclosures and other available information. The court also held that the FDA’s warning letter did not establish falsity under securities law, as the standards and intended audiences differ. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs did not plead a strong inference of scienter, as the facts suggested the company’s officers acted in good faith. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Sneed v. Talphera, Inc." on Justia Law

Two individuals who frequently rented hotel rooms on the Las Vegas Strip brought a class action lawsuit, alleging that several major hotel operators and related entities caused them to pay artificially high prices for hotel rooms. The plaintiffs claimed that these hotels each entered into agreements to license revenue-management software from a single provider, Cendyn, whose products generated pricing recommendations based on proprietary algorithms. The software did not require hotels to follow its recommendations, nor did it share confidential information among the hotels. Plaintiffs alleged that, after the hotels adopted this software, room prices increased.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada reviewed the complaint, which asserted two claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The first claim alleged a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy among the hotels to adopt and follow the software’s pricing recommendations, but the district court dismissed this claim for failure to plausibly allege an agreement among the hotels. The plaintiffs later abandoned their appeal of this claim. The second claim alleged that the aggregate effect of the individual licensing agreements between each hotel and Cendyn resulted in anticompetitive effects, specifically higher prices. The district court dismissed this claim as well, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege a restraint of trade in the relevant market.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because the independent decisions by competing hotels to license the same pricing software, without an agreement among them or a restraint imposed by the software provider, did not constitute a restraint of trade. The court concluded that neither the terms nor the operation of the licensing agreements imposed anticompetitive restraints in the market for hotel-room rentals on the Las Vegas Strip. View "Gibson v. Cendyn Group, LLC" on Justia Law

A Luxembourg-based investment fund and its former General Partner became embroiled in a complex dispute following a contentious split among the fund’s founders. The fund, originally managed by Novalpina Capital Partners I GP S.À.R.L. (Novalpina), saw its General Partner position transferred to Treo NOAL GP S.à.r.l. (Treo) after a vote by limited partners, including the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund (OPERF). The fund’s structure involved multiple entities and significant investments, with allegations of improper conduct and maneuvers by both sides during the transition. Novalpina and Treo subsequently initiated several lawsuits in Luxembourg, including actions over control of the fund and claims for financial entitlements.Novalpina filed an ex parte petition in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, seeking discovery from Oregon officials for use in foreign proceedings, specifically the Veto Right Litigation and a contemplated fraud claim. Treo, Langdon, and Read intervened, and the district court granted the petition, finding statutory and discretionary factors favored Novalpina. The parties negotiated a protective order, which allowed use of the documents in litigation related to the events described in the petition. After Novalpina used the documents in additional foreign proceedings, Treo moved for reconsideration of the discovery grant and to modify the protective order, arguing misuse and misrepresentation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of Treo’s motions. The Ninth Circuit held that documents produced under § 1782 for use in specified foreign proceedings may be used in other proceedings unless the district court orders otherwise. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Treo’s motion for reconsideration or its request to modify the protective order, affirming the district court’s rulings. View "NOVALPINA CAPITAL PARTNERS I GP S.A.R.L V. READ" on Justia Law

Three individuals served as sales agents for a California company that marketed and sold fractional interests in life settlements, which are transactions where investors purchase life insurance policies from insured individuals, pay the ongoing premiums, and receive the death benefit when the insured passes away. The company selected which policies to purchase, determined the purchase price, and managed a complex premium reserve system to fund ongoing premium payments. Investors relied on the company’s expertise in selecting policies and managing the reserve system, and their interests in each policy were fractionalized among multiple investors. When the reserve system failed due to insureds living longer than projected, the company made additional premium calls to investors, and some investors lost their investments if they did not pay.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against the three sales agents. The court found that the fractional interests in life settlements were securities under the Securities Act of 1933, that no exemption from registration applied, and that the sales agents had not registered as broker-dealers. The court ordered disgorgement of a portion of the agents’ commissions, imposed civil penalties, and enjoined one agent from future violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the fractional interests in life settlements were investment contracts and thus securities, because investors’ profits depended on the company’s selection of policies, management of the premium reserve system, and the structure of the fractionalized interests. The court also held that the offerings were not exempt from registration as intrastate offerings, as they were integrated and included at least one out-of-state investor. The court affirmed the remedies, finding that investors suffered pecuniary harm through the loss of the time value of their money. View "UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. BARRY" on Justia Law

A group of individuals and organizations challenged a longstanding policy of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), codified as Rule 202.5(e), which requires defendants in civil enforcement actions to agree not to publicly deny the allegations against them as a condition of settlement. This “no-deny” provision has been in place since 1972 and is incorporated into settlement agreements, with the SEC’s remedy for a breach being the ability to ask the court to reopen the case. The petitioners argued that this rule violates the First Amendment and was improperly adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).Previously, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) petitioned the SEC to amend Rule 202.5(e) to remove the no-deny requirement, citing constitutional concerns. The SEC denied the petition, explaining that defendants can voluntarily waive constitutional rights in settlements and that the rule preserves the agency’s ability to litigate if a defendant later denies the allegations. After the denial, the petitioners sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asserting both First Amendment and APA violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the SEC’s denial. Applying the Supreme Court’s framework from Town of Newton v. Rumery, the court held that voluntary waivers of constitutional rights, including First Amendment rights, are generally permissible if knowing and voluntary. The court concluded that Rule 202.5(e) is not facially invalid under the First Amendment, as it is a limited restriction tied to the settlement context and does not preclude all speech. The court also found that the SEC had statutory authority for the rule, was not required to use notice-and-comment rulemaking, and provided a rational explanation for its decision. The petition for review was denied, but the court left open the possibility of future as-applied challenges. View "POWELL V. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the owners of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun regarding a 2005 joint operating arrangement (JOA). The 2005 JOA amended a 1989 JOA, which had been approved by the U.S. Attorney General under the Newspaper Preservation Act (NPA). The NPA allows failing newspapers to combine operations with another newspaper while maintaining editorial independence, provided they receive prior written consent from the Attorney General. The 2005 JOA was not approved by the Attorney General.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the defendants' motion to dissolve a stipulated injunction that required them to continue performing under the 2005 JOA. The district court concluded that the Attorney General's approval was not necessary for the 2005 JOA to be enforceable, interpreting the NPA as only denying antitrust exemption without invalidating the JOA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the 2005 JOA is unlawful and unenforceable under the NPA because it did not receive the required prior written consent from the Attorney General. The court clarified that the language of the NPA is clear and unequivocal, declaring unapproved JOAs to be unlawful to enter into, perform, or enforce. The court also rejected the district court's interpretation that the lack of approval merely meant the parties lacked antitrust exemption. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "LAS VEGAS SUN, INC. V. ADELSON" on Justia Law

Epic Games, Inc. filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google after Google removed Epic's Fortnite video game from the Google Play Store for noncompliance with its terms of service. Epic had embedded secret code into Fortnite’s software to bypass Google’s required payment-processing systems, which charged a 30% commission on in-app purchases. The jury found that Epic had proven the relevant product markets for Android app distribution and Android in-app billing services and that Google violated both federal and California antitrust laws by willfully acquiring or maintaining monopoly power in those markets, unreasonably restraining trade, and unlawfully tying the use of the Play Store to Google Play Billing.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered a three-year injunction against Google, prohibiting it from providing certain benefits to app distributors, developers, OEMs, or carriers in exchange for advantaging the Play Store. The injunction also required Google to allow developers to provide users with information about and access to alternative app billing, pricing, and distribution channels. Google appealed the liability verdict and the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict and upheld the district court’s injunction. The court rejected Google’s claim that a decision in Apple’s favor in a similar lawsuit precluded Epic from defining the market differently in this case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with a jury trial on Epic’s equitable claims and Google’s damages counterclaims. The court also found that the injunction was supported by the jury’s verdict and the district court’s own findings, and that the district court had broad discretion to craft the antitrust injunction. View "EPIC GAMES, INC. V. GOOGLE LLC" on Justia Law

Mark Schena operated Arrayit, a medical testing laboratory in Northern California, which focused on blood tests for allergies. Schena marketed these tests as superior to skin tests, despite their limitations, and billed insurance providers up to $10,000 per test. To maintain a steady flow of patient samples, Schena paid marketers a percentage of the revenue they generated by pitching Arrayit’s services to medical professionals, often misleading them about the tests' efficacy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Schena transitioned to COVID testing, using similar deceptive marketing practices to bundle allergy tests with COVID tests.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Schena’s motion to dismiss the EKRA counts, arguing that his conduct did not violate the statute as a matter of law. The jury convicted Schena on all counts, including conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, healthcare fraud, conspiracy to violate EKRA, EKRA violations, and securities fraud. The district court sentenced Schena to 96 months in prison and ordered him to pay over $24 million in restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed Schena’s convictions. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 220(a)(2)(A) of EKRA covers payments to marketing intermediaries who interface with those who do the referrals, and there is no requirement that the payments be made to a person who interfaces directly with patients. The court also concluded that a percentage-based compensation structure for marketing agents does not violate EKRA per se, but the evidence showed wrongful inducement when Schena paid marketers to unduly influence doctors’ referrals through false or fraudulent representations. The court affirmed Schena’s EKRA and other convictions, vacated in part the restitution order, and remanded in part. View "United States v. Schena" on Justia Law

A plaintiff filed a putative class action against a dietary supplement company, alleging that the supplement Hydro BCAA was mislabeled. The plaintiff claimed that preliminary testing showed the supplement contained more carbohydrates and calories than listed on its FDA-prescribed label. The plaintiff tested the supplement using FDA methods but did not follow the FDA’s twelve-sample sampling process.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the complaint, holding that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted the claims because the plaintiff did not plead that he tested the supplement according to the FDA’s sampling process. The district court noted a divide among district courts on whether plaintiffs must plead compliance with the FDA’s testing methods and sampling processes to avoid preemption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiff’s complaint allowed a reasonable inference that the supplement was misbranded under the Act, even without allegations of compliance with the FDA’s sampling process. The court found that the plaintiff’s preliminary testing of one sample, which showed significant discrepancies in carbohydrate and calorie content, was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The court emphasized that plaintiffs are not required to perform the FDA’s sampling process at the pleading stage to avoid preemption.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal, allowing the plaintiff’s state-law claims to proceed. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to avoid preemption and stated a plausible claim that the supplement was mislabeled under the Act. View "SCHEIBE V. PROSUPPS USA, LLC" on Justia Law