2025 Litigation
Electric Vehicle Manufacturer Hit with Derivative Suit over Prices Following Shareholder Class Action Settlement
December 20, 2025
Bondad v. Scaringe, No. 8:25-cv-02819 (C.D. Cal.).
Rivian Automotive shareholders have filed a derivative claims suit on behalf of the company, alleging that certain current and former directors and officers failed to disclose the true cost of manufacturing its flagship electric vehicles. The complaint alleges that the defendants portrayed future price hikes as a mere possibility, despite knowing that production costs were in fact significantly higher than projected. The plaintiffs allege that Rivian’s subsequent announcement of the price increases damaged its reputation and share price.
The complaint argues that these alleged omissions have impaired Rivian’s ability to raise capital on favorable terms and increased its cost of debt. The derivative action follows a related securities class action that recently received preliminary approval for a $250 million settlement.
Solar Company Faces Derivative Suit over Purchase from Felon Convicted of Environmental Crimes
December 10, 2025
Kaszirer v. Zartler, No. 4:25-cv-05944 (S.D. Tex.).
Solaris Energy Infrastructure shareholders have filed a derivative claims suit on behalf of Solaris over the energy solutions company’s alleged failure to disclose the risks of acquiring turbine leasing company Mobile Energy Rentals. The complaint alleges that certain current and former directors and officers made false and misleading statements about the “cultural and operational fit” of the acquired company, despite Mobile lacking relevant experience. The complaint also references Mobile’s co-owner’s history of turbine-related fraud and felony environmental crimes. Morpheus Research released a report focusing on Mobile’s operational issues and claiming that Mobile derived over 95% of its revenue from a single customer, rather than having a “diversified earnings stream” as claimed. The release of the Morpheus Research report caused a sharp decline in Solaris’s stock price.
The plaintiffs also contend that the individual Solaris defendants breached their fiduciary duties by artificially inflating the company’s stock price and engaging in illicit insider sales. The derivative action follows a related pending securities class case.
Ninth Circuit Rejects Shareholder Claims Tied to Fashion Collaboration
December 3, 2025
HRSA-ILA Funds v. Adidas AG, No. 24-6655 (9th Cir.).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a federal court’s dismissal of a putative class action filed by Adidas shareholders. Shareholder plaintiffs filed suit in May 2023, alleging that Adidas failed to disclose the risks of relying on Ye West in a multibillion-dollar fashion collaboration with the rapper. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for failure to plead an actionable material misstatement or omission. The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that Adidas materially misrepresented its collaboration with West by calling the risk of his antisemitic and other improper behavior “hypothetical.” The three-judge panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal.
Airbnb Moves to Dismiss Shareholder Suit over Proxy Materials
August 12, 2025
The Heritage Foundation v. Airbnb Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00676 (D. Del.).
Airbnb asked a federal court in Delaware to dismiss a shareholder suit alleging that the company allowed more liberal-leaning proposals to be included in its 2025 proxy materials while excluding proposals from politically conservative groups. The plaintiffs alleged Airbnb claimed it did not receive their proposals in the mail despite proof of delivery. The proposals that Airbnb allegedly failed to include asked the company to analyze how it oversees the risks of political divestment, as well as the risks of restricting services to users based on political views. Airbnb argued that the plaintiffs had not pleaded any facts showing that the proposals ever made it beyond the company’s mailroom, “much less, any facts supporting [the] claim that the Individual Defendants ‘ignored’ the proposals in violation of [SEC] Rule 14a-8.” The company further argued that the plaintiffs had not alleged any specific misstatement or omission to support their securities fraud claim and that the plaintiffs failed to identify the individuals responsible for excluding the proposals.
Court Dismisses Suit over Green Investment Claims
July 15, 2025
Carper v. The Metals Co. Inc., No. 1:21-cv-05991 (E.D.N.Y.).
A federal judge dismissed a shareholder suit accusing The Metals Co. of understating the environmental risks of seafloor mining. Investors alleged that the deep-sea mining and minerals exploration company misled investors by omission when the company said that certain seafloor mining equipment would reduce the waste and the “ESG footprint” of metals. The court found that the challenged statements were not misleading because the plaintiffs “identif[ied] no specific omitted facts,” and further found that The Metals Co. had previously disclosed the environmental risks of its products. The court also noted that the defendant’s alleged “need to raise additional capital to finance operations” constituted only a generalized motive and fell short of the required standard to plead a defendant’s state of mind.
GrafTech Hit with Derivative Suit over Environmental Disclosures
June 10, 2025
Carponi v. Rintoul, No. 1:25-cv-01216 (N.D. Ohio)
Shareholders have filed derivative claims on behalf of GrafTech International over the graphite electrode product manufacturer’s alleged failure to disclose environmental contamination in Mexico. The complaint alleges that GrafTech executives made false and misleading statements about its pursuit of “an environmentally conscious agenda,” while it was in fact ignoring environmental laws and regulations at its factory in Monterrey.
The derivative plaintiff contends that GrafTech contaminated the Monterrey community for decades with gases and particulate matter that cause cancer but did not disclose those practices to investors. When the environmental contamination was revealed in 2022, the company’s stock price dropped. The derivative case was filed after a shareholder class action based on similar allegations.
2024 Litigation
View Litigation ⮟
Shareholder Has an IDEA About Discrimination
November 20, 2024
Kanaly v. McDonald, et al., No. 1:24-cv-08839 (S.D.N.Y. 2024)
Shane Kanaly, a purported Lululemon shareholder, sued certain of Lululemon’s current and former directors and officers on behalf of the company for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the federal securities laws. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants did not disclose that Lululemon’s IDEA (Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Action) program was not structured to meaningfully combat discrimination within the company and that employees continued to experience discriminatory treatment as a result. This was allegedly revealed when an online magazine published an article in November 2023 containing accounts from former Lululemon employees stating that Lululemon’s corporate culture is “unwelcoming of Black people.” The suit alleges similar facts to a securities class action filed against Lululemon earlier in 2024 related to inventory issues with Lululemon’s Breezethrough line.
2023 Litigation
View Litigation ⮟
Investors Pursue Derivative Claims Related to “Greenwashing” by Alternative Energy Company
December 5, 2023
Browning v. Alexander, et al., No. 1:23-cv-03293 (D. Md. 2023)
Investors in Enviva Inc. filed a derivative suit on behalf of the company, alleging that Enviva’s management made false and misleading statements regarding the sustainability of the company’s wood pellet products as a replacement for coal and its cash flow from operations. Plaintiffs allege that the company portrayed itself in SEC filings and public statements as an ESG-focused addition to investors’ portfolios and stated that the company’s focus was on ensuring its business activities supported the best outcomes for people, forests, and the environment. On October 12, 2022, activist investment firm Blue Orca filed a short seller report alleging that Enviva procured wood from clear-cutting forests, in contrast with its public image of promoting environmental welfare, and otherwise engaged in “greenwashing.” The investors allege that Enviva’s stock price fell approximately 13% in response to the Blue Orca report. The derivative suit alleges similar facts to two securities class actions previously filed in federal court in Maryland.
Investors Follow Suit After Brazilian Mining Company Settles With SEC Over Misrepresentations in ESG-Related Disclosures
November 9, 2023
Orbis Global Equity LE Fund (Australia Registered), et al., v. Vale S.A., et al., No. 1:21-cv-06590 (E.D.N.Y. 2023)
Investor funds filed a securities fraud suit against Vale S.A., a publicly traded Brazilian mining company, alleging that Vale made materially misleading statements regarding the company’s construction of dams and its commitment to safety and sustainability. The shareholders allege that Vale’s CEO prioritized cost management over dam safety and sustainability efforts despite stating publicly that sustainability was a “strategic pillar” for the company. The investors allege that between January 25, 2019, and February 24, 2020, Vale’s stock price fell precipitously in response to a series of partially corrective disclosures regarding the impact of the company’s corporate austerity measures on dam safety. The amended complaint arises out of similar underlying facts as an SEC enforcement action against Vale which settled in March 2023 and a securities class action in federal court in New York.
Peloton Facing Investor Suit for Safety-Related Misstatements in ESG Report
November 6, 2023
Tian v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-04279 (E.D.N.Y. 2023)
Peloton Interactive, the maker of the Peloton bike and treadmill, is facing a shareholder class action alleging that the company included misstatements related to product safety in its ESG Report. Peloton’s ESG report stated that product safety was a top priority and claimed that Peloton continually monitored member safety feedback and incorporated its learnings into product development. Plaintiff shareholders contend that this statement was misleading because Peloton concealed a product defect in the seat posts on Peloton bikes and continued selling bikes with recurring product defects. The shareholders allege that Peloton was on notice of the consequences of concealing a product defect after Peloton reached a settlement with the Consumer Product Safety Commission related to defects with the Tread+ product. According to the shareholders, Peloton’s stock price suffered a precipitous decline following a series of disclosures from February 2022 through August 2023 that either revealed defendants’ prior misrepresentations and omissions or the risks concealed by them.
Judge Dismisses Challenge to Diversity Policies
September 11, 2023
National Center for Public Policy Research v. Schultz, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00267 (E.D. Wash. 2023)
Conservative think tank National Center for Public Policy Research’s claims against Starbucks were dismissed by a Washington federal judge who condemned the claims as a political attack. The plaintiff filed a shareholder derivative suit against certain Starbucks officers and directors that claimed that Starbucks’s effort to ensure that members of the BIPOC community made up at least 30% of the corporate workforce and 40% of the retail and manufacturing workforce by 2025 constituted racial discrimination and a breach of fiduciary duty. In its order dismissing the claims, the court noted that the plaintiff’s proposal did not have the support of the majority of Starbucks shareholders and that the question of whether DEI and ESG initiatives adequately address societal inequities was better decided by the political branches.
Delaware Chancery Court Denies Shareholder Request for Books and Records Concerning Florida “Don’t Say Gay” Legislation
June 27, 2023
Simeone v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 2022-1120 (Del. Ch. 2023)
The Delaware Chancery Court denied a shareholder request made pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220 for the pre-suit inspection of corporate books and records concerning Disney’s opposition to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” legislation, HB 1557, finding that the shareholder’s stated purposes in making the demand were “pretextual” and had been solicited by counsel. The shareholder contended that Disney’s fiduciaries put their own beliefs ahead of their obligations to shareholders in opposing HB 1557. The court found that the suit concerned a permissible business judgment by Disney’s board, further finding that there was no evidence the Disney board was conflicted, grossly negligent, or acted in bad faith in opposing HB 1557. The opinion also noted that the shareholder received all necessary documents for his purpose because Disney produced a series of board minutes and corporate policies.
Shareholder Files Federal Securities Class Action Complaint for Alleged “Greenwashing”
April 3, 2023
Fagen, et al. v. Enviva Inc., et al., No. 8:22-cv-02844 (D. Md.)
A shareholder filed an amended proposed class action complaint against Enviva Inc., a wood pellet production plant that produces products that are used as a substitute for coal in power generation, for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint contends that the plant misrepresented its environmental practices in investor marketing and engaged in “greenwashing” of its wood procurement and production, which allegedly caused losses in the value of common stock.
2022 Litigation
View Litigation ⮟
Shareholder Files Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit Against Meta Platforms Inc.
October 3, 2022
McRitchie v. Zuckerberg, No. 2022-0890 (Del. Ch. 2022)
A shareholder filed a putative class action against Mark Zuckerberg, Meta Platforms Inc., and Meta’s board of directors in the Delaware Chancery Court for direct and derivative claims of breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint alleges that Meta has ignored the interests of its diversified stockholders by focusing on company profits without considering social impact.
Shareholder Suit Against Deutsche Bank Alleging Oversight Deficiencies Settles for $26.25 million
September 27, 2022
Karimi v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, No. 1:22-cv-02854 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)
In 2020, shareholders sued Deutsche Bank and recent chief executive officers alleging the bank materially misrepresented its “know-your-customer” and anti-money laundering controls, resulting in an artificial inflation of its stock price. The complaint also alleged that compliance staff was overruled in examining “high-risk” relationships with certain individuals, such as Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit settled for $26.25 million.