Jochims v. Oatly Group AB

Background

The opinion concerns three proposed securities class actions against Oatly Group AB and its directors and officers. The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. They alleged that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts in Oatly’s registration statement, including facts concerning its financial metrics, sustainability, and growth in China.

The proposed classes consisted of purchasers of Oatly American Depositary Shares during the period from May 20, 2021, through July 15, 2021. The court had previously dismissed the complaints and instructed the plaintiffs to provide facts clarifying which types of securities were included. Plaintiffs in the actions with docket numbers 21 Civ. 6360 and 21 Civ. 7904 then filed amended complaints alleging purchases of Oatly American Depositary Shares.

Consolidation

The court granted consolidation for all purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). It found that the three actions involved identical Exchange Act provisions, analogous facts, and identical parties. Consolidation would avoid unnecessary cost and delay, and the opinion identified no unfairness that consolidation would cause.

The consolidated proceeding would use the name In re Oatly Group AB Securities Litigation and docket number 21 Civ. 6360.

Lead Plaintiff

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act generally directs the court to appoint the party or group most capable of adequately representing the class. At this stage, the court considered financial interest, claim typicality, and adequacy of representation.

Hayden and Hipple claimed the largest combined losses, totaling $862,837. Hipple claimed $80,345 in American Depositary Receipt losses, while Hayden claimed $772,820 in options losses. The court declined to appoint them as co-lead plaintiffs—not because Hayden’s losses were too speculative or because he could not adequately represent a class, but because none of the original complaints defined a class that included people with options losses. The amended complaints instead alleged American Depositary Share losses.

After excluding Hayden from consideration, Bello had the greater financial interest compared with Hipple. Bello claimed an $83,464 loss, while Hipple claimed an $80,345 loss. The court found Bello’s claims typical because he alleged that he purchased Oatly American Depositary Shares during the class period at artificially inflated prices caused by the defendants’ allegedly false or misleading statements. The court also found Bello adequate because he had retained qualified and experienced class counsel, had no conflict with the proposed class, and had sufficient interest in the case’s outcome.

Counsel and Disposition

The court granted Mario Bello’s motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiff. It approved Bello’s selection of Scott + Scott as lead counsel. The Clerk was directed to close the open motions, and the parties were ordered to appear for an initial pretrial conference on January 28, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.