Insights
Search Results
Client Highlights
7.08.24
Wilson Sonsini Advises Computer & Communications Industry Association in Landmark Case Impacting Internet Free Speech Rights
On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, marking a significant development in the realm of internet regulation and reinforcing the application of longstanding First Amendment principles to the online world. The cases centered around state laws enacted in 2021 by Florida and Texas, both of which target large social media platforms and internet companies. The laws aim to limit platforms' control over content moderation, including filtering and labeling user-generated content, and mandated detailed explanations for content removal or alteration.
Client Highlights
3.03.23
Wilson Sonsini Secures Fourth Circuit Securities Litigation Victory for MacroGenics and Its Executives
On March 2, 2023, the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a securities class action filed against Wilson Sonsini clients MacroGenics, Inc. and its CEO and CFO. The complaint concerned statements made by the defendants regarding the results of MacroGenics’ Phase III clinical trial of a therapeutic used to treat patients with late-stage metastatic breast cancer. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants made misleading statements by disclosing that the clinical trial met one of its primary endpoints (“progression free survival”), but not simultaneously disclosing data regarding another still accruing endpoint (“overall survival”) and stating that overall survival showed a “preliminary positive trend.” In September 2021, Judge Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead any actionable misrepresentation or omission and the allegations failed to raise a strong inference of scienter.
Client Highlights
5.17.22
Wilson Sonsini Obtains Securities Litigation Win for Dropbox
On May 13, 2022, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a decision dismissing a lawsuit filed in state court against Dropbox, its officers, its board of directors, the underwriters, and certain venture capitalists for alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (’33 Act). The suit arose out of Dropbox’s March 2018 IPO, with the plaintiff alleging that Dropbox made false or misleading statements in its registration statement and prospectus. Dropbox moved to dismiss, invoking its Federal Forum Provision (FFP)—a bylaw that states that any lawsuit brought under the ’33 Act must be brought in federal court. Building upon the firm’s win in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, in which the Delaware Supreme Court confirmed the validity of FFPs, the California Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s ruling that Dropbox’s FFP did not violate the ‘33 Act’s anti-waiver or anti-removal provisions, was constitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause, and was enforceable under California law. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represented Dropbox in the matter.