Stuart

Stuart v. Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 13, 20244:21-cv-08943California4,522 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

20 A. Factual Background 21 Lead Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action against Defendant Ginkgo 22 Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (“Ginkgo” or “the Company”), Harry E. Sloan, Eli Baker, Scott M. 23 Delman, Joshua Kazam, Isaac Lee, Timothy Leiweke, Dennis A. Miller, Laurence E. Paul, Jason 24 Kelly, Reshma Shetty, Arie Belldegrun, Marijn Dekkers, Christian Henry, Reshma Kewalramani, 25 Shyam Sankar, and Anna Marie Wagner under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 26 (“Securities Act”), Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and 27 Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. (Third Am. Complaint, “TAC,” Dkt. No. 82 ¶ 1.) The factual and procedural background is more fully described in the Court’s prior order approving Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of settlement. (Dkt. No. 126.) In sum, the crux of the dispute is whether Defendants violated securities laws by allegedly making more than a dozen misleading omissions and misrepresentations in a Proxy Registration Statement to secure Ginkgo’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company named Soaring…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.