By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The US Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to hear arguments in Nvidia’s (NVDA) bid to torpedo a securities fraud lawsuit accusing the artificial intelligence chipmaker of misleading investors about how much of its sales depended on the volatile cryptocurrency market.
The justices will hear arguments in Nvidia’s appeal of a lower court’s decision allowing a 2018 class action – litigation led by the Stockholm, Sweden-based investment management firm E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB – to proceed.
It is one of two cases to come before the Supreme Court this month that could lead to rulings making it harder for private litigants to hold companies to account for alleged securities fraud. The other one, involving Meta’s Facebook, was argued on Nov. 6.
At issue in the Nvidia case is whether the plaintiffs cleared the heightened legal bar for bringing private securities fraud suits as set by Congress in a 1995 federal law called the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that aimed to screen out frivolous lawsuits.
The plaintiffs accused Nvidia and its CEO Jensen Huang of violating a 1934 federal law called the Securities Exchange Act by making statements in 2017 and 2018 that falsely downplayed how much of Nvidia’s revenue growth came from crypto-related purchases.
Beginning in 2017, as the price of certain cryptocurrencies rose, Nvidia’s chips became increasingly popular for cryptomining, a process that involves performing complex math equations in order to secure cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and ether.
By late 2018, amid a decline in crypto profitability, Nvidia’s revenue fell short of its projections, leading its stock price to fall in early November of that year.
The plaintiffs accused Nvidia and its top officials of concealing the impact of cryptomining on its business. The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages in part to recoup the lost value of the Nvidia stock held by the investors.
A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit but the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently revived it. The 9th Circuit found that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that Huang made “false or misleading statements and did so knowingly or recklessly,” allowing their case to proceed.
Nvidia argued in a filing to the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately show that the disputed corporate statements were false, or the company had intentionally or recklessly misled investors, as required by law.
The plaintiffs countered that their lawsuit contained strong enough allegations – gleaned from former employees, market analysis and expert opinion – to survive Nvidia’s request for dismissal and proceed to the discovery stage of litigation.
