Investors' Case Against Twitter Reopened in Del., as Calif. Suit Takes 23 Months to Resolve
Nearly two years after being put on hold, a case alleging Twitter Inc.'s directors misled shareholders about seeing growth in the number of users on the social media platform has been reopened.
June 15, 2020 at 06:13 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
Nearly two years after being put on hold, a case alleging Twitter Inc.'s directors misled shareholders about seeing growth in the number of users on the social media platform has been reopened.
A stipulation and scheduling order filed Friday and signed by U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika of the District of Delaware indicated the three shareholder plaintiffs intend to file an amended complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by July 2.
The case was administratively closed in 2018 pending the resolution of a securities action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that involves San Francisco-based Twitter Inc. and two of the individual defendants named in the Delaware case.
The Delaware case began in October 2016, when plaintiff Atul Verma accused Twitter's board members and officers of misrepresenting data to investors by claiming the social media platform was seeing an increase in its number of monthly active users—a measurement no longer used by the company—despite the number of the site's daily active users decreasing in 2015.
The original complaint, made public with some redactions in 2018, argued that because advertising is Twitter's primary sense of revenue and the amount of revenue generated from ads is dependent on how frequently those ads are viewed, information about user engagement is key for investors' understanding of revenue potential.
Additionally, the complaint stated knowing only the growth rate of the number of users doesn't give a complete picture of that revenue potential without also considering rates of user engagement.
The defendants are accused of causing damages to Twitter by breaching their duties to the company, including by issuing multiple incomplete or inaccurate statements. Twitter reported July 28, 2015, that the number of monthly users was not growing and user engagement was on the decline.
An unjust enrichment claim was filed against Chief Financial Officer Anthony Noto, who the complaint stated was permitted to keep almost $80 million in equity compensation while allegedly misrepresenting information about Twitter's business. A Brophy claim was also brought against Twitter's founders, Evan Williams and Jack Dorsey, accusing the two of selling more than $276 million in Twitter stock for their benefit despite knowing information that would lower the stock's value if publicly known. Both are on Twitter's board of directors and have held executive roles with the company.
Attorneys for Twitter's directors asked for the case not to proceed further until the California matter was settled, asserting that juggling both cases at once would require Twitter to take contradictory stances.
U.S. Magistrate Chief Judge Mary Pat Thynge of the District of Delaware, who presided over the Delaware case at the time, ordered a stay in July 2018, ruling that delaying a resolution in Delaware would not be prejudicial to the plaintiffs.
On May 15 of this year, Raymond J. DiCamillo of Richards, Layton and Finger, who is representing the defendants, wrote in a letter to Noreika that the California matter was scheduled to go to trial June 22 and that the defendants planned to move for the dismissal of the Delaware case. The California case was continued at the end of May, with no trial date set as of Monday afternoon and a motions hearing and case management conference scheduled for July 8.
DiCamillo and plaintiffs attorney Blake A. Bennett of Cooch and Taylor did not respond to calls Monday.
The June 12 scheduling order indicated if the plaintiffs file an amended complaint by July 2, Twitter would have until Aug. 3 to respond. If Twitter and its board were instead to file a motion to dismiss, the June 12 order stated, the plaintiffs would have until September to respond.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllElon Musk Has a Lot More Than a 'Tornetta' Appeal to Resolve in Delaware
5 minute readCompanies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Kramer Levin's Patent Trial Team Discusses Teaching Tech to Juries
Kirkland Fends Off Antitrust Claims for Thomson Reuters Against AI-Backed Start-Up
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 2Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 3Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 4Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
- 5In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250