backOn May 18, 2026, Judge Eric Komitee of the Eastern District of New York denied PwC’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal, or in the alternative, motion for reconsideration of the court’s March 30, 2026 order denying PwC’s motion to dismiss Section 11 claims. In its March 30, 2026 order, the court held that PwC can be held liable for misstatements and omissions in Clarivate Plc’s registration statements that it certified.
PwC moved for certification of an interlocutory appeal or, in the alternative, reconsideration. The court denied both motions. Regarding interlocutory appeal, the court acknowledged the Ninth Circuit’s contrary decision in Hunt v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 159 F.4th 603 (9th Cir. 2025) (see above), but noted that “disagreement among courts outside the Second Circuit does not establish a substantial ground for difference of opinion.” The court further found that an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the litigation because plaintiffs’ claims against other defendants would survive even if PwC were dismissed.
The case is Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers et al. v. Clarivate Plc et al., case numbers 22-CV-394, 22-CV-1371, 22-CV-1372 (E.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (lead counsel), Pomerantz LLP, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. Clarivate is represented by Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. PwC is represented by Sidley Austin LLP and Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP. A copy of the decision is available here.