Aramic v. Revance Therapeutics: the DAXI securities class action

Revance securities class action: where it stands

The Revance securities class action has not finished. Aramic LLC v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-09585, was dismissed by the Northern District of California on 17 January 2025, but the docket was active again in August 2026. According to the docket as last retrieved on 23 October 2026, a stipulation, a document labelled "Settlement" and two supporting declarations were filed on 10 August 2026 (entries 113 to 116), a statement of non-opposition followed on 24 August (entry 117), and a clerk's notice of 3 September 2026 continued a motion hearing. No order approving a settlement appears in the entries retrieved.

The amount, the class definition for settlement purposes and any claim deadline were not available. A reader should look for an official notice from the court or a claims administrator before assuming a payout exists.

Why the case is named Aramic

Aramic LLC filed the first complaint on 10 December 2021, against Revance, Mark J. Foley and Tobin C. Schilke. Abhay Joshi also appears among the defendants in later filings. Under the securities reform statute, other investors then had a window to ask to lead the case. Aramic and two others filed motions on 8 February 2022: Aramic itself, Ciaran Mac Neill, and the Tang Family Investor Group. Aramic filed a notice that it did not oppose the competing motions. Judge Edward J. Davila heard the matter on 28 July 2022 and, on 7 September 2022, granted the Tang group's motion (entry 50). The caption kept the original name, so the docket that now concerns the Tang group still reads Aramic.

What the complaint alleged

Revance, a Nasdaq-listed company trading as RVNC, was seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for DAXI, its long-acting botulinum toxin product. Counsel for the lead plaintiff describes the complaint this way: Revance failed to disclose or misrepresented that quality control deficiencies existed at the DAXI manufacturing facility, that these deficiencies made it less likely the FDA would approve the biologics license application in its current form, and that approval was unlikely within the timeframe Revance had given investors.

The class period is 5 August 2021 through 15 October 2021, inclusive, a window of about ten weeks. All of this is allegation. The court did not decide that any statement was false.

The dismissal and the appeal

The case moved slowly. Defendants moved to strike a declaration and to dismiss the second amended complaint (entries 91 and 92), and briefing closed with replies on 9 July 2024. Hearings were continued twice, to 30 October and then 7 November 2024, and on 4 November 2024 the court vacated the hearing and decided on the papers. By then the case had moved to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin. On 17 January 2025 she granted both the motion to strike and the motion to dismiss (entry 107), and judgment was entered the same day (entry 108).

The lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on 18 February 2025, and the Ninth Circuit opened No. 25-1036. On 13 August 2025 the appellate court dismissed the appeal, which counsel reports was done in accordance with the parties' contemplated settlement. The entries retrieved show nothing further on the district docket until the August 2026 filings.

A different Revance docket

A second case carries the Revance name in the Middle District of Tennessee: In re Revance Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:25-cv-00018, filed on 3 January 2025 and assigned to Judge Eli Richardson. It is a separate action with a different set of named parties, and nothing in this page describes its claims. That action reached a settlement. According to the claims administrator's site, it is a cash settlement of $17,000,000 for persons and entities that purchased or acquired Revance securities, common stock and 1.75% convertible notes, from 29 February 2024 through the close of the merger on 6 February 2025. The settlement hearing was held on 10 August 2026, and on 11 August 2026 the court granted final approval of the settlement, the plan of allocation and the attorneys' fees. The deadline to submit a claim was 28 August 2026 and has passed. A Revance shareholder looking for a payout should read the notice on the administrator's site for that case, and should not assume the Aramic papers lead to the same payment.

How an appeal and a settlement fit together

It is unusual for a dismissed case to settle, but it happens when the plaintiffs hold a live appeal that gives the defendants a reason to resolve the risk. In a securities class action a settlement still needs the court's approval after notice to the class. The basic structure of a class action lawsuit is covered elsewhere on this site, and the Eargo case shows the other path, where the Ninth Circuit affirmed a dismissal. The Silverback IPO case ended with a dismissal and no appeal in the entries retrieved.

What to watch next

The next concrete event is the rescheduled motion hearing before Judge Martinez-Olguin. The clerk's notice of 3 September 2026 terminated the earlier hearing and set a new one, and the notice text itself, which was not retrieved, holds the date.