Securities class action lawsuits: five cases and where each one stands

Securities class action lawsuits on the tracker

As of 23 Oct 2026 the tracker follows five securities class action lawsuits. Three concern the stock of a listed company: Chung v. Eargo, Dresner v. Silverback Therapeutics and Aramic v. Revance Therapeutics. Two plead that digital assets were securities: Real v. Yuga Labs and the FTX promoter claims. Each status below rests on a docket entry that was read on that date.

A securities class action is a proposed suit on behalf of investors, not a finding that anyone misled them. The companies and individuals named deny the allegations, and the entries keep what plaintiffs claim apart from what a court has done.

Eargo: dismissed, and affirmed on appeal

Alden Chung filed the first complaint on 4 November 2021 in the Northern District of California, No. 3:21-cv-08597, over the 15 October 2020 Eargo IPO and later statements about insurance revenue. Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the case on 31 August 2023, and a Ninth Circuit memorandum of 10 January 2025 left the dismissal in place. No class was certified and no settlement appears on the docket.

Silverback: dismissed with prejudice

Dresner v. Silverback Therapeutics, No. 2:21-cv-01499, was filed on 5 November 2021 in the Western District of Washington. It concerned the December 2020 IPO and the lead drug candidate SBT6050. The court appointed Benjamin Dresner lead plaintiff on 23 February 2022 and, on 12 April 2023, dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. No appeal appears in the entries retrieved.

Revance: dismissed, then settlement papers

Aramic LLC filed against Revance Therapeutics on 10 December 2021, No. 3:21-cv-09585, alleging undisclosed manufacturing quality control problems at the facility for DAXI. The district court dismissed it on 17 January 2025 and the Ninth Circuit appeal was dismissed on 13 August 2025. Settlement papers were filed on 10 August 2026. No approval order was seen on this docket, and the amount was not retrieved. A second, separate Revance securities action in the Middle District of Tennessee, No. 3:25-cv-00018, settled for $17,000,000 and reached final approval on 11 August 2026; its claim deadline of 28 August 2026 has passed.

Yuga Labs and FTX: when the question is what counts as a security

The two crypto-related cases ask something the company-stock cases do not. Before any statement can be called misleading, the court has to decide whether the NFT, token or exchange product was a security at all. In the Yuga Labs case, Judge Fernando M. Olguin dismissed the second amended complaint on 30 September 2025 with leave to amend, and a motion against the third amended complaint has been under submission since 26 November 2025. The FTX promoter claims proceed in a multidistrict proceeding in the Southern District of Florida, No. 1:23-md-03076, where promoter motions to dismiss remain undecided on the entries retrieved.

Two statutes, two kinds of claim

Most of these complaints rest on two federal laws. Claims under the Securities Act of 1933 target the documents used to sell shares in an offering, such as an IPO prospectus. Claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 target statements made afterwards while the stock trades, and they require facts pointing to intent. The Ninth Circuit's Eargo memorandum turned on that second requirement, according to a law-firm summary of the ruling.

The difference shows in how the cases end. Securities suits meet an early test, a motion to dismiss, and of the three company-stock cases here two stopped there. How the earlier steps work, notice, lead plaintiff and certification, is set out in the explainer on how a class action works.

How an entry is added to this hub

A case is listed only when its federal docket can be read and its status tied to a dated entry. Cases known only from law-firm announcements are left out. Blume v. Inspirato, which carries an investor-sounding name, is an individual personal injury suit and is not listed here.

The one point none of the five dockets settles is the question a reader usually asks first: whether a payment is coming. For Revance the answer differs by docket: the Tennessee action has a $17,000,000 settlement with final approval of 11 August 2026, while the Aramic filings of 10 August 2026 still await the court's review on the entries retrieved.