The Penn Carey Law community joins Dean Sophia Lee in congratulating Ari Goldstein L’25, WG’25 (left) and Douglas Snyder L’25, MBE’26 on their Keedy Cup victory.
Ari Goldstein L’25, WG’25 and Douglas Snyder L’25, MBE’26 are this year’s Edwin R. Keedy Cup winners. Goldstein and Snyder argued for the Respondents in the competition’s case, NVIDIA Corporation v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB.
The Keedy Cup, named for Edwin R. Keedy, who served as Dean of the Law School during World War II, is the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School’s intramural moot court competition.
Goldstein was also named Best Oralist, and Benjamin Kilano L’25 and Raymond LaMotta L’25 argued for Petitoners.
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.
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.
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:
1. Whether plaintiffs alleging scienter (intent to deceive) under the PSLRA must detail the contents of internal company documents with particularity; and
2. Whether plaintiffs can meet the Act’s falsity requirement by using expert opinion instead of specific factual allegations.
Congratulations to all, and thank you to those who attended!
Original source can be found here.