Yaroni v. Pintec Technology Holdings Limited

Claims and ruling

The judgment states that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a material misstatement or omission that was not time-barred. The court therefore ruled that the plaintiff’s claims under Section 11 failed.

The court also ruled that the Section 15 claims failed. Section 15 imposes liability on a control person, but the court explained that such a claim requires the plaintiff first to establish a primary violation of the relevant statute. Because the Section 11 claims failed, the Section 15 claims failed as well. The court did not consider defendants’ other arguments for dismissal.

Leave to amend

The court denied leave to amend the complaint. It stated that the problems with the claims were substantive and that amendment would therefore be futile. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not requested permission to file another amended complaint or indicated that he had facts that could cure the identified problems. In addition, the court had previously allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint for a second time and had expressly warned that he would not receive another opportunity to address the issues raised by the motion to dismiss.

Disposition

Judgment was entered in favor of defendants, and the case was closed. This was a ruling on a motion to dismiss and related amendment request; under the classification convention, it is a procedural order because the court disposed of the claims at the pleading stage rather than deciding the underlying securities allegations after merits litigation.