Supreme Court Won't Decide Nvidia Securities Fraud Case After All

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: New York Times

Supreme Court Won’t Decide Nvidia Securities Fraud Case After All
In an unsigned order, the justices dismissed the case against the tech giant as “improvidently granted,” meaning they had concluded that it had been a mistake to take it up.

By Adam Liptak
Reporting from Washington
Dec. 11, 2024, 10:18 a.m. ET

The Supreme Court, which heard arguments last month about whether to allow a lawsuit accusing Nvidia of misrepresenting its reliance on the cryptocurrency mining industry, announced on Wednesday that it would not decide the case after all.

In an unsigned, one-sentence opinion, the court dismissed the case as “improvidently granted,” meaning the justices concluded that it had been a mistake to take it up. There were no noted dissents. ... The practical effect of the decision was to leave in place an appeals court decision that had let much of the case proceed.

The move followed a similar one in November in another securities fraud case, against Facebook, which had been accused of failing to adequately disclose a data breach that allowed Cambridge Analytica to harvest the private information of millions of users. In that case, too, the dismissal let stand an appeals court ruling, allowing the case to proceed.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/us/politics/supreme-court-nvidia-securities-fraud.html

[wolfie001]

1. They don't wanna shake up Wall Street before the fat orange felon takes over

[LauraInLA]

2. But letting the cases proceed seems like it will shake Wall Street, doesn't it?

[onenote]

4. This lets the case against Nvidia continue.

No dissents.

[wolfie001]

11. Thanks LauraInLA and onenote

I come to DU to learn. And maybe I should read the post in its entirety before weighing in Cheers

[moniss]

3. Incoming DOJ and SEC will

make everything "OK".

[onenote]

5. This is a private investor action, not a government action.

[moniss]

6. Do you really think the incoming

SEC guy won't petition the court to be an intervenor etc. Just so he can provide the court with assurances the investor has the regulations "all misinterpreted"?

[onenote]

7. Do you know the details of this lawsuit?

Have you read the lower court decision or the petition for cert?

Just trying to gauge your level of expertise in predicting what the SEC would think about this suit.

[moniss]

8. What do you think the incoming bum really cares about the actual

regulations, the case law and it's meaning to him trying to inject himself? Good heavens wasn't the first time around enough to show that these people don't care about what is right, normal, precedent, conventional wisdom, conventional process or anything other than doing anything they want? Was it really that long ago that somehow all is forgotten and we now are to believe that "the rule of law" will restrain these people?

[onenote]

9. I take your answer as being "no"

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2024, 04:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's a hint as to how this case isn't what you think it is --- NVIDIA was represented by Neal Katyal and the Respondent investors were represented by Deepak Gupta, both highly regarded lawyers whose names would come up in discussions of potential Biden Supreme Court nominees. And the judge that dissented in the ninth circuit -- arguing that NVIDIA's motion to dismiss should have been granted -- was a Biden court nominee.

The issues in this case were highly technical and ultimately not appropriate for Supreme Court review, which is why, during oral argument last month, both Justice Sotomayor and Justice Gorsuch essentially suggested the Court should never have taken up the case in the first place and allowed it to go to trial.

[moniss]

10. You clearly dodge the point and everything you've written certainly matters in a

normal environment. You really can't possibly believe that we are getting ready to be in a normal environment.

[onenote]

12. Okay. Let's concede its not a normal environment. Whose side does the Trump admin. take in this case and why?