Search results for: facebook

This week, Judge Sweet granted the motion for class certification as part of the ongoing multi-district litigation over Facebook’s alleged negligent misstatements or omissions surrounding its 2012 IPO.  Central to the litigation are calls made by Facebook’s treasurer to underwriter analysts to revise revenue projections downward, and the extent that this information spread through the investment community prior to the IPO.  Judge Sweet certified a class of all persons who purchased Facebook stock during or traceable to the IPO on May 17, 2012, with two subclasses for institutional and individual/retail investors.

Continue Reading MDL Investor Class Certified in Facebook IPO Actions

In an opinion filed last week but just posted to the ECF docket this morning, Judge Sweet denied the motion of Facebook and its underwriter banks to dismiss federal securities claims arising from the May 2012 Facebook IPO.  Noting specifically that the complaint does not allege securities fraud, Judge Sweet permitted the class action complaint of violations of other sections of the securities laws to go forward.

Continue Reading Judge Sweet Denies Facebook’s Motion to Dismiss Federal Securities Claims

In a decision last week, Judge Sweet ruled that the self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) immunity applied to bar some of the claims brought against the NASDAQ stock exchange in the consolidated In re Facebook IPO litigation.  Judge Sweet’s opinion in essence divided the claims between those that preceded the IPO and those that occurred during and after the IPO, holding the SRO immunity did not shield the NASDAQ for pre-IPO-based claims.

Continue Reading Judge Sweet Dismisses Some, but Not All, Claims Against NASDAQ in Facebook IPO Suit

Last week, via a memo endorsement, Judge Koeltl granted the Democratic National Committee’s motion to serve Wikileaks by Twitter in the DNC’s case over the 2016 election hacks (see our coverage here).

The DNC argued that “[w]hile WikiLeaks’ physical presence is difficult to discern, it has a robust online presence, including an active presence on Twitter, using the handle @WikiLeaks.”  From that account, Wikileaks in fact had acknowledged reading the DNC’s complaint.  As the DNC argued in its motion, “From April 20 to April 22, WikiLeaks tweeted about the lawsuit at least six times, in one instance including a screenshot of part of the complaint, and in three instances directing followers to analyses of the complaint.”

On Friday, as Judge Koeltl authorized, the DNC served the initiating documents via the following tweet :

For another case involving social media service of process, see this post from five years ago in which Judge Engelmayer denied a motion to serve Indian telemarketers via Facebook.

As part of the ongoing Uber antitrust litigation, the Second Circuit yesterday reversed Judge Rakoff’s earlier ruling that the arbitration clause in Uber’s terms of service was not enforceable (see our previous coverage of Judge Rakoff’s decision here, and the interlocutory appeal here).

Continue Reading Second Circuit Reverses Judge Rakoff, Finds Uber Arbitration Clause is Enforceable

A complaint filed today alleges that President Trump and others violated the First Amendment when they blocked Twitter users who wrote tweets critical of the president.  The plaintiffs claim that preventing them from viewing comments, replying to tweets, and participating in comment threads denies access to an important public forum in the 21st century.

According to the complaint:

President Trump’s Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, has become an important source of news and information about the government, and an important public forum for speech by, to, and about the President. In an effort to suppress dissent in this forum, Defendants have excluded—“blocked”—Twitter users who have criticized the President or his policies. This practice is unconstitutional, and this suit seeks to end it.  As the Supreme Court recognized just a few weeks ago, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter provide “perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” . . . . Twitter enables ordinary citizens to speak directly to public officials and to listen to and debate others about public issues, in much the same way they could if they were gathered on a sidewalk or in a public park, or at a city council meeting or town hall.

The complaint contains a single cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the First Amendment.  A judge has not yet been assigned.