print-icon
print-icon

Supreme Court Will Hear Shareholder Lawsuit Alleging NVIDIA Deceived Investors

Tyler Durden's Photo
by Tyler Durden
Authored...

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Supreme Court agreed on June 17 to hear a case from Silicon Valley giant NVIDIA that could make it more difficult for shareholders to pursue securities fraud lawsuits.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on May 29, 2024. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)

The justices granted the petition for certiorari, or review, in NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB in an unsigned order. No justices dissented. The Court did not explain its decision. At least four of the nine justices must vote to grant a petition for it to advance to the oral argument stage.

NVIDIA is a high-tech company known for its graphics processors commonly used in artificial intelligence development, based in Santa Clara, California. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB is an investment management firm in Stockholm, Sweden.

Investors sued NVIDIA claiming the company misrepresented how dependent it was on revenue from cryptocurrency mining before a market setback in 2018. The company argues that the legal complaint filed against it lacks sufficient specificity to move forward.

A lower court resurrected the proposed class action lawsuit brought by shareholders in California and the Swedish firm against the company. Those suing alleged that NVIDIA and senior company officials violated the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making statements that downplayed how much of the company’s revenue growth grew out of crypto-related transactions.

Those omissions misled market participants who wanted to understand the impact of crypto-mining on the company’s business, the plaintiffs argued.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. threw out the lawsuit in 2021 but a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reinstated it. The circuit court determined that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged the company’s CEO made “false or misleading statements and did so knowingly or recklessly,” and permitted the case to go ahead.

This is a developing story. This article will be updated.

0
Loading...