Matthew L. Mustokoff

This securities fraud class action brings claims against Catalent, Inc. (“Catalent” or the “Company”), an outsourced drug manufacturer for pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and certain of its former senior executives (together, “Defendants”). The case arises out of Defendants’ alleged material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company’s key production facilities and revenue in the face of declining demand for COVID-19 vaccine products. 

According to Plaintiffs, Catalent initially benefitted from the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased demand for Catalent’s services and catapulted the Company to record high revenues. However, as demand for COVID-19 vaccines waned as a critical mass of Americans were vaccinated, so too did demand for Catalent’s services, leaving the Company with diminishing revenues, a bloated headcount, excess production capacity at its newly expanded facilities, and increasing safety and quality control issues at key production facilities in Bloomington, Indiana; Brussels, Belgium; and Harmans, Maryland.

Rather than admit this truth, however, Defendants made a set of false and misleading statements during the Class Period touting: (i) the good condition and well-maintained nature of Catalent’s key production facilities (the “Quality Control Statements”); (ii) the Company’s compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (the “GAAP Compliance Statements”); and (iii) non-COVID related demand for the Company’s products and services (the “Non-Vaccine Demand Statements”).

On September 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a 187-page complaint on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On November 15, 2023, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which Plaintiffs opposed on January 12, 2024. Briefing on the motion was completed on February 15, 2024.

On December 29, 2025, U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement for $78 million in In re City of Warwick Ret. Sys. v. Catalent, Inc. et al., a securities fraud suit pending in New Jersey federal court. 

After overcoming Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims, plaintiffs conducted extensive discovery and were in the midst of class certification proceedings at the time of settlement. The parties’ settlement is subject to final approval by the Court.  

Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the $78 million Settlement on December 23, 2025. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on December 29, 2025 and scheduled a Settlement Hearing for June 10, 2026.

This securities fraud class action arises out of Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions made in connection with Coinbase going public in April 2021 (the “Direct Listing”). The Direct Listing generated tremendous excitement because Coinbase was the first cryptocurrency exchange to become publicly-traded in the United States. As alleged, Coinbase’s financial success hinged almost entirely on its ability to increase and maintain its customer base, particularly its retail users, which in turn drove transaction fee revenue. Transaction fee revenue accounted for nearly all of the Company’s revenues. 

Unbeknownst to investors, however, during the run up to the Direct Listing and all relevant times thereafter, Defendants failed to disclose numerous material facts and risks to investors, all of which imperiled Coinbase’s financial success. Defendants failed to disclose the material risks arising from Coinbase’s inability to safeguard custodial assets in the event of bankruptcy. That is, that in the event Coinbase went bankrupt, Coinbase customers could lose some or all of their assets stored with the Company. Indeed, Coinbase would later admit on May 10, 2022, that the Company’s inability to protect its customers’ crypto assets from loss in the event of bankruptcy made it likely that customers would find the Company’s custodial services more risky and less attractive, which could result in a discontinuation or reduction in use of the Coinbase platform. 

Plaintiffs also allege that during this same period, Defendants continuously misled investors about the severe regulatory risks that threatened Coinbase’s U.S. business. Prior to the Direct Listing, the SEC was clear that many digital assets in the marketplace were securities under existing federal law. Given the substantial number of digital assets Coinbase made available on its trading platform, and its increased focus on offering “staking” and its “Coinbase Wallet” product, the Company’s susceptibility to adverse regulatory action grew exponentially throughout the Class Period. As alleged, despite Defendants’ knowledge of the critical consequences arising from an SEC enforcement action, Defendants nevertheless denied listing securities on Coinbase’s platform, and assured investors that Coinbase was in compliance with existing federal securities laws and positively engaged with regulators. 

On July 25, 2022, Bloomberg reported that in May 2022, the SEC began investigating Coinbase for listing securities and for potential violations of the federal securities laws. Thereafter, on March 22, 2023, Coinbase disclosed that the SEC issued it a Wells Notice for potential securities fraud violations, which were formally alleged in a complaint filed by the SEC on June 6, 2023. In response to these disclosures, including the May 10 revelation, Coinbase’s stock price dropped, causing significant losses and damages to Coinbase’s investors. 

On July 20, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. After briefing the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, on September 5, 2024, the Court denied in part and granted in part Coinbase’s motion to dismiss. Thereafter, Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings and to certify for interlocutory review the Court’s September 5, 2024 motion to dismiss order. On September 30, 2025, the Court denied in part and granted in part the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and denied the interlocutory motion. On October 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. Motion to dismiss briefing is completed and pending before the Court.

Read Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint Here

Read Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint Here 

Read Court’s September 4, 2024 Opinion Here

Read Court’s September 30, 2025 Opinion Here 

Read Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint Here

This securities fraud class action case arises out of Goldman Sachs’ role in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”) money laundering scandal, one of the largest financial frauds in recent memory.

In 2012 and 2013, Goldman served as the underwriter for 1MDB, the Malaysia state investment fund masterminded by financier Jho Low, in connection with three state-guaranteed bond offerings that raised over $6.5 billion. Goldman netted $600 million in fees for the three bond offerings—over 100 times the customary fee for comparable deals.

In concert with Goldman, Low and other conspirators including government officials from Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates ran an expansive bribery ring, siphoning $4.5 billion from the bond deals that Goldman peddled as investments for Malaysian state energy projects. In actuality, the deals were shell transactions used to facilitate the historic money laundering scheme. Nearly $700 million of the diverted funds ended up in the private bank account of Najib Razak, Malaysia’s now-disgraced prime minister who was convicted for abuse of power in 2020. Other funds were funneled to Low and his associates and were used to buy luxury real estate in New York and Paris, super yachts, and even help finance the 2013 film “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

AP7 filed a 200-page complaint in October 2019 on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Goldman and its former executives, including former CEO Lloyd Blankfein and former President Gary Cohn, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements about Goldman’s role in the 1MDB fraud. As alleged, when media reports began to surface about the collapse of 1MDB, Goldman denied any involvement in the criminal scheme. Simultaneously, Goldman misrepresented its risk controls and continued to falsely tout the robustness of its compliance measures. Following a series of revelations about investigations into allegations of money laundering and corruption at 1MDB, Goldman’s stock price fell precipitously, causing significant losses and damages to the Company’s investors.

In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Goldman’s Malaysia subsidiary had pled guilty to violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) which criminalizes the payment of bribes to foreign officials, and that Goldman had agreed to pay $2.9 billion pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement. This amount includes the largest ever penalty under the FCPA.

On June 28, 2021, The Honorable Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sustained Plaintiff’s complaint in a 44-page published opinion. On July 31, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to conform the pleadings to the evidence adduced during discovery, which is now complete. 

Plaintiff first moved for class certification in November 2021. While that motion was pending, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and subsequently ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for class certification be newly briefed in light of the amended pleading. On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff renewed its motion for class certification. On September 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the Southern District of New York issued a 35-page opinion adopting the 2024 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommending certification of the shareholder class in Sjunde AP-Fonden v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., No. 18-cv-12084. The Court’s decision follows a full-day evidentiary hearing and oral argument held in February 2024. Defendants filed a petition appealing the Court’s decision. Defendants’ petition was denied on January 14, 2026. In April 2026, the parties reached a settlement in principle. Preliminary approval was filed on May 20, 2026.
 
Notice of the pendency of the Action and the Court’s certification of the Class is being disseminated to the Class. You can review a copy of the Notice below. For more information, please visit the case website, www.GoldmanSachsSecuritiesAction.com. You can also contact the Administrator, Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., by calling 1-877-744-0160 or emailing [email protected].

Notice of Pendency of Class Action Here

Read Third Amended Class Action Complaint Here

Read Opinion and Order Granting and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss Here 

Read the Report and Recommendation on Motion for Class Certification Here

This securities fraud class action asserts claims against ICON plc (“ICON” or the “Company”), a clinical research organization (“CRO”) that handles clinical trials for large pharmaceutical and biotech companies, its current CEO, Stephen Cutler, its former CFO, Brendan Brennan, and current COO, Barry Balfe. The case arises out of Defendants’ false and misleading statements regarding ICON’s key business metrics and financial performance in the face of significant decreases in research and development expenditures from the Company’s large pharmaceutical customers. Defendants’ misstatements propped up ICON’s share price, allowing Individual Defendants Cutler and Brennan to enrich themselves with nearly $30 million from insider sales before the fraud was revealed.

Prior to the start of the Class Period, ICON acquired one of its main competitors, PRA Health Sciences, Inc. (“PRA”), in an attempt to increase the Company’s exposure to the biotech sector. The costly PRA acquisition was largely a failure, leaving ICON saddled with billions of dollars in debt and significant interest payments. By mid-2023, ICON’s share price had fallen well below its prior December 2021 peak, and its credit rating sank to “junk.” This prompted ICON and the Individual Defendants to resort to fraud. During the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly made fraudulent representations about ICON’s key business metrics and inflated ICON’s financial performance in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). In particular, the Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented or omitted material information concerning: (1) the purported increase in the number of Requests for Proposals (“RFPs”) ICON received from its biotech customers and its RFP win rate; (2) the Company’s declining business from its largest customers; (3) ICON’s business wins and book-to-bill ratio; and (4) the Company’s overall financial health. Further, Defendants attempted to hide ICON’s deteriorating performance by engaging in improper revenue recognition and accounting practices in violation of GAAP, including holding open reporting periods to book revenue properly attributable to the following period, issuing fake invoices so that the Company could prematurely recognize revenue, and omitting project costs. Throughout the Class Period, both Brennan and Cutler signed SOX certifications stating that ICON’s financial statements “fairly present[ed], in all material respects, the financial conditions and operations of the Company,” yet those statements materially misstated the Company’s financial performance in violation of GAAP.

In truth, ICON was seeing declining RFPs and fewer contracts across its business groups, its largest customers had informed Defendants that they would be doing less work with the Company, and ICON was engaging in fraudulent financial reporting tactics to mislead the public. The truth about Defendants’ fraud came to light through a series of partial corrective events. First, on July 24, 2024, ICON reported weak financial results, and during ICON’s July 25, 2024 earnings call, Cutler alluded to challenges and pricing pressure in the large pharma space but denied that these factors had affected the Company. Next, on October 23, 2024, ICON revealed a surprise “revenue shortfall” of $100 million for 3Q24 and reduced the Company’s 2024 guidance, which Defendants had reiterated just six weeks earlier. ICON also disclosed that leading indicators of underlying demand for ICON’s services had significantly deteriorated. Finally, on January 14, 2025, the truth was fully revealed when ICON issued financial guidance for 2025 that was below analysts’ expectations. In the wake of these disclosures, ICON’s stock dropped precipitously, causing substantial losses to the Company’s investors.

On September 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a 201-page Complaint on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased ICON common stock between July 27, 2023 and January 13, 2025, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Following additional investigation and certain disclosures made by ICON, Plaintiffs elected to amend their complaint.  That amendment will be filed in May 2026.

This securities fraud class action brings claims against NVIDIA, the world’s largest maker of graphic processing units (GPUs), and its Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang. The case arises out of Defendants’ efforts to fraudulently conceal the extent of NVIDIA’s reliance on GPU sales to cryptocurrency miners. Led by Lannebo Kapitalförvaltning AB, one of Sweden’s largest institutional investors, the suit alleges that in 2017 and 2018, NVIDIA’s revenues skyrocketed when it sold a record number of GPUs to crypto miners. Plaintiffs allege that during this period, NVIDIA’s sales to crypto miners outpaced its sales to the company’s traditional customer base of video gamers. Yet Defendants misrepresented the true extent of NVIDIA’s cryptocurrency-related sales, enabling the company to disguise the degree to which its growth was dependent on the notoriously volatile demand for crypto.

Following the price collapse of Etherium, a leading digital token, in late 2018, investors began to learn of NVIDIA’s true dependence on sales to crypto miners. This culminated on November 15, 2018, when NVIDIA announced it was only expecting $2.7 billion in fourth quarter revenues (a 7% decline year-over-year) which it attributed to a “sharp falloff in crypto demand.” Market commentators expressed shock at the company’s about-face, and NVIDIA’s stock price fell precipitously, damaging investors by billions of dollars in market losses.

The action was filed in June 2019 on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After the District Court dismissed the complaint, Plaintiffs successfully appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On August 25, 2023, in a published decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that Defendants “made materially false or misleading statements about the company’s exposure to crypto, leading investors and analysts to believe that NVIDIA’s crypto-related revenues were much smaller than they actually were.” The Ninth Circuit further held that the complaint sufficiently alleged that Defendants knew or were at least deliberately reckless as to the falsity of their statements.

Defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Ninth’s Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court granted the petition on June 17, 2024. Following extensive briefing and oral argument, on December 11, 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, paving the way for Plaintiffs to enter discovery and prosecute their case against Defendants before the District Court. 

On March 25, 2026, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Fact discovery remains ongoing. 

Read the Ninth Circuit Opinion Here

Read the Supreme Court Decision Here