Securities
Overview
One of the oldest firms in the field, we have stood at the forefront of securities law since its inception. Our founder was in the first generation of securities lawyers and rendered service to the SEC in its earliest years. Since that time, we have procured landmark victories for our clients. KM remains one of the few law firms to have secured trial victories in securities fraud class actions, achieved the first ever appellate reversal of a lower court’s dismissal of a class action suit pursuant to the PSLRA, procured a landmark settlement of $590 million related to Citigroup’s misconduct during the financial crisis, and most recently, in a matter of first impression, established the right of English shareholders to bring derivative claims against English companies in New York state courts.
Today, we put our longitudinal familiarity with the federal and state laws governing securities fraud to identify traditional and creative solutions for our clients that support their goals and optimize their recoveries.
KM’s securities litigation efforts are complemented by the firm’s portfolio monitoring and case evaluation services. A dedicated team of experienced litigators, analysts, and support staff monitor our institutional clients’ investment portfolios and deliver customized analyses and action recommendations when fraud-related losses occur.
LEARN MORE
Experience
On May 7, 2026, Forward Air reported its first quarter 2026 financial results and provided a customer and strategic alternatives update. Among other things, the Company disclosed operating revenues of $582.0 million, compared to $613.3 million in the prior-year period, representing a decrease of 5.1%. The Company also disclosed a net loss of $40.2 million and a net loss attributable to Forward Air of $34.3 million, or $1.09 per diluted share. Forward Air also disclosed that it was “currently in active discussions with one of its largest customers” regarding “the transition of a significant portion of their business with the Company to other providers.” Forward Air further disclosed that the customer represented approximately $250 million of the Company’s revenue for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, and was not a customer of Forward Air’s Less Than Truckload or Intermodal businesses. Forward Air also provided an update on its strategic alternatives process. The Company disclosed that its review included “extensive negotiations and discussions with multiple parties,” but that “due to a variety of factors, including the developments in Forward Air’s relationship with the Customer, no actionable proposals for a sale of the Company were ultimately received.” On this news, the price of Forward Air shares declined by $7.46 per share, or approximately 43%, from $17.33 per share on May 7, 2026 to close at $9.87 on May 8, 2026.
On September 25, 2025, CarMax issued a press release entitled “CarMax Reports Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2026 Results” announcing, among other things, that a) retail unit sales decreased 5.4% and comparable store unit sales decreased 6.3%; wholesale units decreased 2.2% and b) net earnings per diluted share of $0.64 versus $0.85 a year ago. On the accompanying earnings call, representatives of the Company stated: “During our first quarter call, I mentioned that we saw an uptick in sales volume in March and April due to the tariff speculation. This impacted our performance in the second quarter in 2 ways. First, we ramped our inventory ahead of the second quarter to support this growth. Across the back half of May through the end of June, we saw about $1,000 in depreciation, which natively impacted our price competitiveness and our sales.” On this news, the price of CarMax shares declined by $11.50 per share, or approximately 20.07%, from $57.05 per share on September 24, 2025 to close at $45.60 on September 25, 2025.
According to the complaint, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the timeline for the New Drug Application ("NDA") submission and approval process for aficamten. Specifically, defendants represented that the Company expected approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for its NDA for aficamten in the second half of 2025, based on a September 26, 2025 PDUFA date, and failed to disclose material risks related to the Company's failure to submit a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy ("REMS") that could delay the regulatory process.
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. (“Unicycive” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:UNCY) securities during the period of March 29, 2024 through June 27, 2025, inclusive (“the Class Period”). If you suffered a loss on your Unicycive investments, you have until October 14, 2025 to request lead plaintiff appointment.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)Unicycive's readiness and ability to satisfy the FDA's manufacturing compliance requirements was overstated; (ii) the OLC NDA's regulatory prospects were likewise overstated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On June 10, 2025, Unicycive issued a press release "announcing an update on its [NDA] for [OLC] to treat hyperphosphatemia in patients with [CKD] on dialysis." Therein, the Company disclosed that the FDA "had identified deficiencies in cGMP [current good manufacturing practice] compliance at a third-party manufacturing vendor"-specifically, a third-party subcontractor of Unicycive's contract development and manufacturing organization ("CDMO")-"following an FDA inspection" and that, "given the identified deficiencies, any label discussions between the FDA and the Company are precluded." On this news, Unicycive's stock price fell $3.68 per share, or 40.89%, to close at $5.32 per share on June 10, 2025.
Then, on June 30, 2025, Unicycive issued a press release announcing that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter for the OLC NDA, citing the previously identified cGMP deficiencies at the third-party subcontractor of its CDMO. On this news, Unicycive's stock price fell $2.03 per share, or 29.85%, to close at $4.77 per share on June 30, 2025.
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Tesla Inc. (“Tesla” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:TSLA) securities during the period of April 19, 2023 through June 22, 2025, inclusive (“the Class Period”). If you suffered a loss on your Tesla investments, you have until October 3, 2025 to request lead plaintiff appointment.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tesla overstated the effectiveness of its autonomous driving technology; (ii) there was thus a significant risk that the Company's autonomous driving vehicles, including the Robotaxi, would operate dangerously and/or in violation of traffic laws; (iii) the foregoing increased the likelihood that Tesla would become subject to heightened regulatory scrutiny; (iv) accordingly, Tesla's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On June 22, 2025, Tesla debuted its Robotaxi service with a highly publicized launch event in Austin, Texas. At the event, approximately 10 autonomous driving Robotaxis with a "safety monitor" in the front passenger seat began picking up invite-only passengers in a geofenced 10-mile by five-mile square of Austin. The next day, Bloomberg published an article entitled "Tesla Robotaxi Videos Show Speeding, Driving Into Wrong Lane," which reported that "Tesla Inc.'s self-driving taxis appeared to violate traffic laws during the company's first day offering paid rides, with one customer capturing footage of a left turn gone wrong and others traveling in cars that exceeded posted speed limits." That same day, in an article entitled "Tesla Robotaxi Incidents Draw Scrutiny From US Safety Agency," Bloomberg reported that the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") had contacted Tesla regarding the foregoing incidents, noting that the NHTSA "is aware of the incidents that were captured in videos posted on social media and is gathering additional information from the company." Further, the Bloomberg article quoted a statement released by the agency that "[f]ollowing an assessment of those reports and other relevant information, NHTSA will take any necessary actions to protect road safety."
Then on June 24, 2025, in an article entitled "NHTSA Now Targets Tesla Robotaxi After Autonomous EVs Break Traffic Laws," International Business Times stated, in relevant part, that "the emergence of videos showing concerning behaviour by Tesla's robotaxis may dampen public enthusiasm. The controversy has also triggered fresh criticism and could impact the scheduled rollout later this month."
Following these reports, Tesla's stock price fell $21.13 per share over two trading sessions, or 6.05%, to close at $327.55 per share on June 25, 2025.
After the end of the Class Period, on August 1, 2025, it was reported that a jury in a trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida determined that Tesla should be held partly liable for a fatal 2019 Autopilot crash, and must compensate the family of the deceased and an injured survivor a portion of $329 million in damages.
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Snap Inc. (“Snap” or the “Company”) (NYSE:SNAP) securities during the period of April 29, 2025 through August 5, 2025, inclusive (“the Class Period”). If you suffered a loss on your Snap investments, you have until October 20, 2025 to request lead plaintiff appointment.
According to the complaint, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Snap's advertising revenue growth rate; notably, that, due to Snap's own execution failure, it had significantly declined from 9% in the first quarter to only 1% in April.
On August 5, 2025, Snap announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2025, disclosing a deceleration in advertising revenue growth. The Company attributed the slowdown to "an issue related to our ad platform, the timing of Ramadan and the effects of the de minimis changes." Following this news, the price of Snap's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $9.39 per share on August 5, 2025, Snap's stock price fell to $7.78 per share on August 6, 2025, a decline of about 17.15% in the span of just a single day.
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Novo Nordisk A/S (“Novo” or the “Company”) (NYSE:NVO) securities during the period of May 7, 2025 through July 28, 2025, inclusive (“the Class Period”). If you suffered a loss on your Novo investments, you have until September 30, 2025 to request lead plaintiff appointment.
According to the complaint, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Novo's growth potential; notably, that its asserted potential to capitalize on the compounded market greatly understated the potential impact of the personalization exception to the compounded GLP-1 exclusion and overstated the likelihood such patients would switch to Novo's branded alternatives, and further greatly overstated the potential GLP-1 market or otherwise Novo's capability to penetrate said markets to achieve continued growth.
On July 29, 2025, Novo announced it was lowering its sales and profit outlook ahead of reporting its results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2025. The Company attributed the guide down on "lowered growth expectations for the second half of 2025" for both Wegovy and Ozempic due to "the persistent use of compounded GLP-1s, slower-than-expected market expansion and competition." Following this news, the price of Novo's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $69.00 per share on July 28, 2025, Novos stock price fell to $53.94 per share on July 29, 2025, a decline of about 21.83% in the span of just a single day.
No. 18-cv-05127 (C.D. Cal.).
No. 20-cv-02190 (D.N.J.).
No. 82-cv-00338 (W.D. Tex.).
No. 84-cv-06913 (C.D. Cal.).
No. 84-cv-10917 (N.D. Ill.).
C.A. No. 9672 (Del. Ch.).
C.A. No. 10060 (Del. Ch.).
No. 88-cv-C5425 (W.D. Mich.).
No. CA 980 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cty.).
C.A. No. 10881 (Del. Ch.).
C.A. No. 10466 (Del. Ch.).
No. 38899, M-6679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept.).
No. C90-295C (W.D. Wash.).
No. 88-cv-00040 (C.D. Cal.).
No. 90-cv-20710 (N.D. Cal.).
No. B90-340 (D. Conn.).
No. CV-S-89-05-LDG (D. Nev.).
No. 94-cv-00334 (D. Idaho).
No. 94-cv-00744 (N.D. Ga.).
No. 94-cv-02217 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 95-cv-02877 (C.D. Ill.).
No. 94-cv-00255 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 93-cv-00876 (E.D.N.Y.).
No. 97-cv-07709 (N.D. Ill.).
No. 98-cv-06364 (D. Ala.).
No. 96-cv-02583 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 98-cv-02819 (D.N.J.).
No. 00-cv-00602 (N.D. Cal.).
No. 00-7005 (2nd Cir.).
No. 97-cv-00715 (W.D. Wash.).
No. 01-cv-01351 (E.D. Pa.).
Nos. 99-cv-01305 and 99-cv-01462 (C.D. Cal.).
No. 00-cv-2518 (D.S.C.).
No. 00-cv-02284 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 99 B 5346A (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).
No. 01-cv-20320 (N.D. Cal.).
No. 183-N (Del. Ch.).
No. 01-cv-00284 (D. Idaho).
No. 01-cv-00640 (W.D. Wash.).
No. 98-cv-02178 (N.D. Ill.).
No. 99 CH 11893 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.).
No. 02-cv-00190 (D.R.I.).
No. 00-cv-08754 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 91-cv-03610 (E.D.N.Y.).
No. 01-cv-10729 (D. Mass.).
No. 01-cv-10729 (D. Mass.).
No. 04-cv-03840 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 05-cv-00338 (D.N.J.).
No. 03-cv-05605 (N.D. Cal.).
No. 08-cv-00856 (N.D. Cal.).
No. 06-cv-02596 (E.D. Pa.).
No. 04-cv-02236 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 09-cv-7822 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 08-cv-00755 (Del. Ch.).
No. 02/604396 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.).
No. 08-cv-06171 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 12-cv-03664 (N.D. Tex.).
No. 08-cv-70004 (N.D. Ohio).
No. 03-md-01529 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 07-cv-09901 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 11-cv-02802 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 10-cv-00302 (C.D. Cal.).
No. 15-cv-03773 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 12-cv-08557 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 10-cv-08086 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 13-cv-03385 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 14-cv-09357 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 11387-VCS (Del. Ch.).
No. 17-4039-399 (Bankr. E.D. Mo.).
No. 15-cv-00163 (D. Ariz.).
No. 13-cv-05697 (S.D.N.Y.).
No. 15-cv-01970 (C.D. Cal.).
No. 16-cv-11797 (D. Mass.).
No. 19-cv-00509 (S.D. Tex.).
No. 602052/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.).
KM represented an English investor in a shareholder derivative lawsuit against officers and directors of HSBC Holdings and its subsidiaries, alleging that HSBC facilitated money laundering operations out of New York City. In a matter of first impression, we established the right of English shareholders to bring derivative claims against English companies in New York state courts. The litigation settled for $72.5 million, the then-largest foreign derivatives settlement ever reached and one of the largest insurer-funded cash payments achieved in a U.S. derivative lawsuit.
No. 21-cv-00987 (E.D. Tex.).
No. 20-cv-2581 (N.D. Ill.).
Investigations
- Company
- Status
- Deadline
- Company Accenture
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company AECOM
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Alignment Healthcare, Inc
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Alphatec Holdings, Inc.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Azenta, Inc.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Certara, Inc.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company EquipmentShare, Inc.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Forward Air Corporation
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
-
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP is investigating potential claims against Forward Air Corporation (“Forward Air” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:FWRD). The investigation concerns whether the Company and/or members of its senior management may have violated federal securities laws or engaged in other unlawful business practices.
On May 7, 2026, Forward Air reported its first quarter 2026 financial results and provided a customer and strategic alternatives update. Among other things, the Company disclosed operating revenues of $582.0 million, compared to $613.3 million in the prior-year period, representing a decrease of 5.1%. The Company also disclosed a net loss of $40.2 million and a net loss attributable to Forward Air of $34.3 million, or $1.09 per diluted share. Forward Air also disclosed that it was “currently in active discussions with one of its largest customers” regarding “the transition of a significant portion of their business with the Company to other providers.” Forward Air further disclosed that the customer represented approximately $250 million of the Company’s revenue for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, and was not a customer of Forward Air’s Less Than Truckload or Intermodal businesses. Forward Air also provided an update on its strategic alternatives process. The Company disclosed that its review included “extensive negotiations and discussions with multiple parties,” but that “due to a variety of factors, including the developments in Forward Air’s relationship with the Customer, no actionable proposals for a sale of the Company were ultimately received.” On this news, the price of Forward Air shares declined by $7.46 per share, or approximately 43%, from $17.33 per share on May 7, 2026 to close at $9.87 on May 8, 2026.
- Company Futu Holdings Limited
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Gaia, Inc.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Jefferies Financial Group, Inc.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Kemper Corporation
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company MercadoLibre, Inc.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Option Care Health, Inc.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Primoris Services Corporation
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Qiagen N.V.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company The Marzetti Company
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Trex Company, Inc.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
- Company Wix.com Ltd.
- Status Investigating
- Deadline
News
Part II: ADR Cases Involving Japanese Companies
Contacts
Featured Case
Out of Court Settlement
We represented a major pension fund and a sovereign wealth fund in negotiations with a money center bank to settle the clients’ claims in a prominent securities litigation. Dealing directly with defendants and without the need to file opt-out litigation, KM was able to procure for its clients significant settlements which represented more than 150% of the recovery they would have received should they have remained passive members of the class. To the firm’s knowledge, these two clients are the only entities to have received a settlement premium in this matter. KM continues to monitor the claims process to ensure everything is handled smoothly for its clients.
Whistleblower Spotlight
- State of NY ex rel. Tooley, LLC v. Sandell, et al., 101494/2018 (N.Y. Supreme Court, N.Y. County). KM procured the largest-ever settlement of an income tax whistleblower case under the New York False Claims Act – $105 million – through our representation of a whistleblower against hedge fund billionaire Thomas Sandell and Sandell Asset Management Corporation alleging they submitted false New York tax returns that failed to count more than $450 million as New York-taxable income, causing them to underpay New York taxes by more than $50 million. Our client received award of 21% of the $105 million recovery.
LEARN MORE
Featured Case
Whistleblower Spotlight
- State of NY ex rel. Tooley, LLC v. Sandell, et al., 101494/2018 (N.Y. Supreme Court, N.Y. County). KM procured the largest-ever settlement of an income tax whistleblower case under the New York False Claims Act – $105 million – through our representation of a whistleblower against hedge fund billionaire Thomas Sandell and Sandell Asset Management Corporation alleging they submitted false New York tax returns that failed to count more than $450 million as New York-taxable income, causing them to underpay New York taxes by more than $50 million. Our client received award of 21% of the $105 million recovery.
