2022 Securities Litigation Year in Review

During 2022, securities case filings fell for the fourth consecutive year and were down slightly from 2021. The number of announced settlements rose substantially last year, as did total settlement amounts. The 2022 settlements include 10 mega-settlements of more than $100 million. Case filings involving COVID-19, SPACs, and cryptocurrencies represented nearly one third of all filings in 2022, and we address important developments relating to securities litigation in each of those sectors.  

Our 2022 Securities Litigation Year in Review focuses on significant securities-related decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Pirani v. Slack Technologies, Inc. to resolve whether plaintiffs must plead and prove that they bought shares registered under the registration statement they claim is misleading. We also discuss the latest developments in the long-running Goldman Sachs securities litigation following last year's Supreme Court decision remanding the case and providing guidance as to how the lower courts should consider genericness in the price impact context. We analyze 12 decisions from the federal appellate courts addressing the pleading requirements for securities fraud cases and also explain a number of significant decisions related to forum-selection provisions decided in 2022.

Read the White Paper here.

Insights by Jones Day should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request permission to reprint or reuse any of our Insights, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at This Insight is not intended to create, and neither publication nor receipt of it constitutes, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.