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
District Of Idaho Grants Motion To Dismiss Securities Class Action Against Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
On February 3, 2026, Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class fraud action asserting claims against a semiconductor company (the “Company”), and its CEO and CFO, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re Micron Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:25-cv-00191-BLW (D. Idaho Feb. 3, 2026). In granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court held that the amended complaint did not adequately plead falsity or scienter.Read More
Ninth Circuit Partially Revives Putative Class Action Against Manufacturer Of Pop Culture Collectibles
On February 4, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part a decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granting a motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit, reviving claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against a manufacturer of pop culture collectibles (the “Company”) and two of its officers. Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis et al. v. Funko Inc., et al., No. 24-4909 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2026). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misled investors as to the progress of the Company’s major warehouse relocation, the quality and management of the Company’s inventory, its use and upgrade of information technology, and its distribution capabilities. We previously covered the district court’s ruling in which it dismissed the complaint for failure to sufficiently allege falsity or scienter here. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in its assessment of whether certain alleged statements regarding the Company’s inventory management and its use of existing information technology systems were sufficiently false and misleading.Read More
Government/Regulatory Enforcement
New York Attorney General Institutes Insider Trading Action Under Martin Act
On January 15, 2026, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a complaint against a former life-sciences manufacturing CEO, alleging violations of New York’s Martin Act for trading material nonpublic information related to the manufacturing of Covid-19 vaccinations.Read More
New DOJ Fraud Enforcement Division Announced
On January 8, 2026, a new U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Division for National Fraud Enforcement was announced. According to the announcement and accompanying fact sheet, the initiative aims to centralize strategy, strengthen coordination, and accelerate fraud enforcement actions involving federally funded programs and benefits, as well as matters affecting private citizens.Read More
M&A and Corporate Governance
Delaware Supreme Court Finds Attorneys’ Fee Award Excessive In Excessive Compensation Case
On January 30, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court, sitting en banc, affirmed a settlement resolving excess compensation claims against non-employee director defendants but reversed and modified the portion of the settlement allocated by the Court of Chancery to plaintiffs’ counsel fee award, reducing it from approximately $173 million to $71 million. In re Tesla, Inc. Dir. Comp. S’holder Litig., C.A. No. 2020-0477 (Del. Jan. 30, 2026). Defendants alleged that the fee award improperly took into account the intrinsic value of stock options returned to the company for cancellation and applied an excessive percentage to the valuation of the associated financial benefit.Read More
Delaware Court Of Chancery Denies Special Litigation Committee’s Motion To Terminate Due To Questions About Independence
On January 30, 2026, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants’ motion to strike but denied a motion to terminate a derivative action asserting fiduciary breach claims against certain directors following a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”) investigation. Grabski ex rel. Coinbase Global, Inc., v. Andreessen, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0464-KSJM (Del. Ch. Jan. 30, 2026). The Court found that plaintiff adequately alleged that one of the two SLC members had sufficient connections to one of the director defendants to raise a material question about his independence to be raised and thus declined to terminate the litigation based on the SLC’s recommendation.Read More
Antitrust Litigation
Federal District Court Dismisses Foreign Parent Companies For Lack Of Jurisdiction In Polyurethane Price-Fixing Case
On January 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge W. Scott Hardy of the Western District of Pennsylvania (W.D. Pa.) unsealed his January 8, 2026, opinion dismissing price-fixing claims against two foreign corporations for lack of personal jurisdiction. In re: Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:18-mc-01001 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2026). The court dismissed with prejudice antitrust claims against Covestro AG (“Covestro”) and Wanhua Chemical Group Co., Ltd. (“Wanhua”), in a multidistrict litigation alleging that defendants conspired to fix the price of polyurethane components sold in or shipped to the United States and/or its territories. The Court held it lacked both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Covestro and Wanhua, entities headquartered in Germany and China, respectively.Read More
Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Blocking Pre-Commercial Heart Valve Acquisition
On January 23, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed its order granting a preliminary injunction blocking a life sciences company’s proposed $945 million acquisition of a heart valve company, prompting defendant to abandon the deal. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., No. 1:25‑cv‑02569 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2026).Read More
Intellectual Property Litigation
Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Denies Appeal From A District Court Ordering An $8 Million Bond Under Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions Of Patent Infringement Act
On December 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Longhorn IP and Katana Silicon Technologies’ interlocutory appeal from a district court order requiring an $8 million bond under Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act. Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC (C.A.F.C. Dec. 18, 2025).Read More
Federal Circuit Affirms Indefiniteness And Noninfringement Of Intelligent Distribution Network Patents
In Akamai Techs., Inc. v. MediaPointe, Inc., No. 24-1571 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Central District of California’s summary judgment determinations of indefiniteness and non-infringement. Akamai Technologies, Inc. sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,559,426 and 9,426,195, against AMHC, Inc., the owner of the patents, and its subsidiary, MediaPointe, Inc. (referred to collectively as “MediaPointe”). MediaPointe counterclaimed for infringement, and Akamai sought a declaratory judgment of invalidity.Read More