Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. GSK PLC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action concerning alleged concealment of Zantac’s potential to form NDMA. The court holds that the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act are barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations because reasonably diligent plaintiffs would have discovered the relevant facts before February 4, 2023. The Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice, and the court does not reach Defendants’ other dismissal arguments.

Holdings

1. The claims were time barred because reasonably diligent plaintiffs would have discovered the facts constituting the alleged Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) violations before February 4, 2023, more than two years before the action was filed.
2. Dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because any attempt to amend would be futile in light of the statute-of-limitations bar.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs’ Exchange Act securities-fraud claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b).
2. Whether publicly available allegations, litigation records, expert reports, court opinions, news articles, and analyst reports gave reasonably diligent plaintiffs sufficient information to discover the facts constituting the alleged securities-law violations before February 4, 2023.
3. Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because amendment would be futile.

Disposition

dismissed