The Keedy Cup, named for Edwin R. Keedy, who served as Dean of the Law School during World War II, is Penn Carey Law’s intramural moot court competition.
The competition begins in the spring, when all second-year students are invited to enter the Keedy Cup Preliminaries. The four students who receive the highest score in the Preliminaries, based on written briefs and three rounds of oral argument, move on to the Keedy Cup Finals.
This year’s Keedy Cup Finalists are
Benjamin Kilano L’25, Raymond LaMotta L’25, Ari Goldstein L’25, WG’25, and Douglas Snyder L’25, MBE’26.
In the Keedy Cup Finals, the four finalists brief and argue a pending Supreme Court case before a panel of sitting federal judges live in Fitts Auditorium, which this year includes the Honorable John F. Murphy, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Honorable Marsha Berzon, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Honorable Richard G. Taranto, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The Case: NVIDIA Corporation v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB
Swedish investment management firm E. Öhman J:or Fonder AB, along with others, filed a class action on behalf of individuals and entities who purchased NVIDIA Corporation stock. They claimed NVIDIA had intentionally understated its reliance on sales to cryptocurrency miners, a volatile market. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that it did not meet the heightened pleading standards required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), designed to prevent abuses in securities litigation.
The plaintiffs appealed, and a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s ruling, determining that the plaintiffs’ pleadings were sufficiently specific under the PSLRA. NVIDIA then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to consider two key questions:
- Whether plaintiffs alleging scienter (intent to deceive) under the PSLRA must detail the contents of internal company documents with particularity; and
- Whether plaintiffs can meet the Act’s falsity requirement by using expert opinion instead of specific factual allegations.
All members of the Penn Carey Law community are invited to watch and cheer on the student oralists.
Original source can be found here.