Welcome to A&O Shearman's Need-To-Know Litigation Weekly, which analyzes notable U.S. decisions, orders and developments each week in areas of Securities Litigation, Government/Regulatory Enforcement, M&A and Corporate Governance, Antitrust Litigation and IP Litigation. This weekly newsletter is intended to supplement our various publications and thought leadership concerning these important substantive areas.
Securities Litigation
Northern District Of Illinois Narrows Securities Fraud Class Action Against Leading Commercial Jetliner Manufacturer
On March 31, 2026, Judge Manish S. Shah of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in large part and denied in part a motion to dismiss claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an airplane manufacturer (the “Company”) and four of its former officers. College Retirement Equities Funds v. The Boeing Company, No. 22 CV 3845 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2026).Read More
Eastern District of New York Dismisses Proposed Class Action Against Exercise Equipment Company With Prejudice
On March 31, 2026, Judge Margo Brodie of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against an exercise equipment company (the “Company”) and its officers and directors for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Tian v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., 23-cv-4279-MKB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2026). Read More
Government/Regulatory Enforcement
Foreign Nationals Charged In International Operation Targeting Wash Trading In Cryptocurrency Markets
On March 30, 2026, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California announced indictments of ten executives and employees of four cryptocurrency focused financial services firms. The firms purport to make markets in various cryptocurrencies. The indictments flow from an undercover operation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation targeting “wash trading” in cryptocurrency markets. The defendants are charged with implementing fraudulent schemes to inflate trading volumes in cryptocurrencies, resulting in artificially high market prices. If convicted, the defendants face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349.Read More
SEC Updates Enforcement Manual: Key Changes To Wells Notices, Settlements, and Cooperation Guidance
On March 11, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding(“MOU”)to “guide coordination and collaboration” between the agencies. The MOU specifically seeks to address what SEC Chairman Paul Atkins called the “regulatory turf wars, duplicative agency registrations, and different sets of regulations between the SEC and CFTC” that have led to duplicative or fragmented oversight for financial market participants.Read More
M&A and Corporate Governance
Delaware Court Of Chancery Enforces Texas Forum Selection Bylaw Retroactively
On April 13, 2026, Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants’ motions to dismiss derivative claims brought by stockholders of Tesla, Inc. (the “Company”) in Delaware. In re Tesla, Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2024-0631-BWD (Del. Ch. Apr. 13, 2026). The Company had redomesticated from Delaware to Texas and, at the same time, adopted a bylaw designating Texas as the exclusive forum for derivative litigation. The Court enforced the bylaw and dismissed the case even though the claims were brought and the alleged conduct at issue occurred prior to the formal adoption of the bylaw and the Company’s redomestication in Texas.Read More
Chancery Declines To Dismiss Claims Against Non-Independent Directors Who Voted in Favor of Special Committee-Approved Spin-Off Transaction
On April 13, 2026, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed claims for breach of fiduciary duty asserted by minority stockholders against a special committee but declined to dismiss those asserted against non-independent directors and executives in connection with a multi-step spin-off transaction. Vladimir Fishel, et al. v. Liberty Media Corporation, et al., C. A. No. 2024-1057-KSJM (Del. Ch. Apr. 13, 2026). The Court held that, while plaintiffs failed to allege a reasonable inference that the special committee was so controlled that it acted in bad faith, all that was needed to sustain a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the non-independent directors was “a showing that the conflicted directors voted in favor of the interested transaction.”Read More
Antitrust Litigation
Federal District Court Denies Untimely Jurisdiction Challenge in Generic Drug Price-Fixing Case
On April 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea denied a motion by defendant Mallinckrodt PLC to dismiss an antitrust action brought by 45 state attorneys general for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper service, concluding the company forfeited those defenses by waiting more than five years after the complaint and by litigating on the merits in the interim. Plaintiffs’ claims therefore continue against defendant in Connecticut et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 3:20 cv 00802 MPS (D. Conn.) (the “Dermatology Action”), which alleges single drug conspiracies and an overarching agreement across roughly eighty generic dermatology drugs.Read More
Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Seed Company Price-Fixing Allegations
On April 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit declined to revive a price-fixing lawsuit brought by a proposed class of farmers against manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of crop inputs. In re: Crop Inputs Antitrust Litigation, No. 24-3104 (8th Cir. April 6, 2026). Plaintiffs alleged defendants conspired to boycott e-commerce platforms and inflate prices through a secretive distribution process in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The appeal arose from twenty-eight similar actions consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judge Sarah Pitlyk concluded that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege defendants’ parallel conduct and dismissed their claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.Read More
Intellectual Property Litigation
Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Of Invalidity Despite Arguments Regarding The Admissibility Of The Underlying Evidence
On April 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the District of Utah’s grant of summary judgment invalidating claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,458,689 under the pre-America-Invents-Act on-sale bar, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Definitive Holdings v. Powerteq, No. 2024-1761 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2026).Read More
Certificates Of Correction Of Inventorship Issued After Final Written Decisions May Not Impact The Decisions
On March 9, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) final written decision (“FWD”) on remand in an inter partes review (“IPR”), relating to certificates of correction of inventorship issued after the FWDs had been rendered. Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., No. 2020-1173, ---F.4th--- (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2026). The CAFC affirmed the Board’s holding that certificates of correction issued after the FWDs had been rendered in the respective IPRs had no impact on the FWDs.Read More