In re: Walmart Inc. Securities Litigation

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · August 29, 2025 · No. 24-1818

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a securities fraud class action against Walmart. The court held that Walmart's omission of a pending federal opioid investigation from its periodic financial filings did not render its general "Contingencies" disclosures misleading or violate GAAP loss contingency rules. The opinion concludes that early-stage government investigations do not automatically constitute a "reasonably possible" material liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Writing for the Court
SCIRICA; CHAGARES; RENDELL
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decision date
August 29, 2025
Docket number
24-1818
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil No. 1:21-cv-00055); district court granted Walmart's motion to dismiss and denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
Kim Kengle and Roseanne Lacy v. Walmart Inc.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

securities fraudcivil proceduremotions to dismisspleadings

Practice areas

securities litigationcorporate lawcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Walmart’s disclosures omitted a material liability by failing to disclose the pending government investigation, thereby violating Section 10(b) and Rule 10b‑5.
  2. Whether Walmart’s disclosures violated ASC 450’s loss‑contingency disclosure requirements.

Holdings

  1. The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the investigation constituted a reasonably possible material liability; therefore the disclosures were not misleading and the dismissal was affirmed.
  2. The court held that plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the investigation rose to a loss contingency that required disclosure under ASC 450; thus the ASC 450 claim fails and the dismissal is affirmed.

Key quotations

"no legal authority for the proposition that being the subject or target of an investigation constitutes a ‘liability.’"
"the complaint does not plausibly allege that the investigations ... would result in a material liability."

Factual background

From 2016 to 2018 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas investigated Walmart’s pharmacy opioid dispensing practices. The investigation never resulted in an indictment, but Walmart’s stock fell after media coverage. Plaintiffs alleged Walmart omitted the investigation from its SEC filings.

Procedural history

The district court dismissed the securities fraud class action for failure to plausibly allege a material misrepresentation and denied leave to amend. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…