Experts may work with counsel before a securities complaint is filed, helping analyze potential claims, financial data, market information, and other evidence. A separate question is getting more attention: when can an expert’s analysis actually be used to support the allegations in the complaint itself?
That issue was at the center of E. Öhman J Fonder AB v. NVIDIA Corp.
The plaintiffs alleged that NVIDIA understated how much cryptocurrency mining contributed to sales of its gaming GPUs. To support their allegations, they retained economic consultants to estimate NVIDIA’s cryptocurrency-related GPU revenues.
The consultants used publicly available information and a demand-side analysis. As described by the Ninth Circuit, the analysis estimated the computing power used on major GPU-mined blockchain networks, the number of GPUs needed to supply that computing power, NVIDIA’s estimated share of the relevant market, and the resulting revenue attributable to NVIDIA GPUs used for cryptocurrency mining.
The plaintiffs incorporated that analysis into their complaint. A divided Ninth Circuit ultimately concluded that the analysis, together with other allegations, provided sufficient support for the plaintiffs’ allegations of falsity at the pleading stage.
The decision also highlighted the scrutiny that can come with relying on expert analysis this early. The majority considered the consultants’ qualifications, methodology and underlying data, along with other allegations that it viewed as corroborating the analysis. The dissent questioned several assumptions underlying the analysis, including the basis for the estimate of NVIDIA’s cryptocurrency GPU market share.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear NVIDIA’s appeal and heard oral argument in November 2024. But a month later, it dismissed the case as improvidently granted without deciding the merits.
That left the broader question unresolved at the Supreme Court level.
And it remains an active issue in 2026. Lower courts continue to address when expert opinions can support allegations at the pleading stage. Courts have generally focused on whether an expert’s conclusions are supported by sufficiently particularized facts, rather than treating an expert opinion itself as a substitute for the factual allegations required under the PSLRA.
How Vega Can Help
For cases where quantitative analysis may be useful before or at the pleading stage, Vega can work with counsel and experts to identify relevant public and alternative data, build and test economic models, evaluate assumptions and competing explanations, and document the methodology and factual support behind the analysis.
Ninth Circuit Decision: 21-15604.pdf
Supreme Court Docket: Docket for 23-970
For additional inquiries, please contact info@vegaeconomics.com.