Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Supreme Court to hear Nvidia bid to scuttle shareholder lawsuit

Reprints
SC

(Reuters) — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a bid by Nvidia to scuttle a securities fraud lawsuit accusing the artificial intelligence chipmaker of misleading investors about how much of its sales went to the volatile cryptocurrency industry.

The justices took up Nvidia's appeal made after a lower court revived a proposed class action brought by shareholders in California against the company and its CEO, Jensen Huang. The suit, led by the Stockholm, Sweden-based investment management firm E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, seeks unspecified monetary damages.

Santa Clara, California-based Nvidia is a high-flying company that has become one of the biggest beneficiaries of the AI boom, and its market value has surged.

In 2018, Nvidia's chips became popular for cryptomining, a process that involves performing complex math equations in order to secure cryptocurrencies like bitcoin.

The plaintiffs in a 2018 lawsuit accused Nvidia and top company officials of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making statements in 2017 and 2018 that downplayed how much of Nvidia's revenue growth came from crypto-related purchases.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. dismissed the lawsuit in 2021 but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling subsequently revived it. The 9th Circuit found that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that Mr. Huang made “false or misleading statements and did so knowingly or recklessly,” allowing their case to proceed.

Nvidia urged the justices to take up its appeal, arguing that the 9th Circuit's ruling would open the door to “abusive and speculative litigation.”