The Supreme Court dismissed a closely watched securities fraud case against Nvidia Corporation on December 11, 2024, issuing a brief per curiam order stating that "the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." The dismissal represents a rare procedural outcome that effectively abandons the case after the court had already heard oral arguments.
The case, *Nvidia Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB*, involved allegations brought by Swedish investment fund E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB and other investors against the semiconductor giant. The Supreme Court had granted certiorari to review a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was reported at 81 F.4th 918.
Oral arguments in the case took place on November 13, 2024, with prominent attorneys representing both sides. Neal Kumar Katyal argued for Nvidia, while Deepak Gupta represented the investor plaintiffs. The U.S. government participated as amicus curiae through Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar's office, with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler and other Justice Department attorneys supporting the respondents' position.
The dismissal as "improvidently granted," commonly known as a "DIG," is an unusual procedural move that occurs when the Supreme Court determines after briefing and argument that it should not have agreed to hear the case. This outcome effectively leaves the lower court's decision intact without creating binding Supreme Court precedent on the underlying legal issues.
While the Supreme Court's order provides no explanation for the dismissal, such decisions typically occur when justices conclude that the case does not present the legal questions they initially believed it would address, or when factual or procedural complications make the case unsuitable for establishing clear legal precedent.
The case attracted significant attention from the business and legal communities, as evidenced by multiple amicus curiae briefs filed in support of Nvidia's position. Organizations filing briefs urging reversal of the Ninth Circuit's decision included the Atlantic Legal Foundation, represented by Lawrence S. Ebner; the Digital Chamber, represented by Frank Scaduto and others; and the Washington Legal Foundation, represented by James N. Kramer and Daniel A. Rubens.
Securities fraud cases involving major technology companies often raise important questions about corporate disclosure obligations and the standards for investor protection. The dismissal means these broader legal questions remain unresolved at the Supreme Court level, potentially leaving circuit courts to continue developing their own approaches to similar issues.
The Ninth Circuit's decision, which the Supreme Court had agreed to review, apparently favored the investor plaintiffs in some respect, given that the U.S. government's amicus brief urged affirmance of that ruling. However, without a substantive Supreme Court opinion, the specific legal issues and holdings in the case remain unclear to the broader legal community.
For Nvidia, the dismissal effectively ends the immediate threat of Supreme Court review that could have established adverse precedent. The company's legal team, led by Katyal of Hogan Lovells, had assembled a substantial group of attorneys to handle the case, including partners from what appears to be a major corporate defense effort.
The investor plaintiffs, represented by Gupta and attorneys from Gupta Wessler PLLC and other firms, now face the reality that their victory in the Ninth Circuit will stand without the possibility of broader Supreme Court validation that might have strengthened similar claims in other circuits.
The dismissal also highlights the unpredictable nature of Supreme Court review, even after the justices have invested significant resources in briefing and oral argument. The court's willingness to dismiss cases as improvidently granted serves as a reminder that cert grants do not guarantee substantive rulings on the merits.
Looking forward, the dismissal leaves open the possibility that similar securities disclosure issues could reach the Supreme Court in future cases with cleaner procedural postures or more clearly presented legal questions. Circuit courts will continue to develop their own approaches to corporate disclosure obligations without definitive Supreme Court guidance from this case.
The preliminary print nature of the Supreme Court's report indicates that minor formatting and typographical corrections may still be made before the final bound volume is published. However, the substantive outcome dismissing the case is final and represents a definitive end to this particular chapter of securities litigation involving one of America's most valuable technology companies.