b'quarter were similar to what they were by market relative to Analyst Day, the court held that a genuine dispute of fact existed regarding whether that statement was misleading given that DAU/MAU had fallen to 44.4% from 48% on Analyst Day. The court also held that plaintiffs evidence that defendants received binders reflecting that DAU/MAU declined to 44.4% and had access to internal dashboards that included detailed and current user-engagement metrics established that a reasonable jury could conclude defendants were aware of the declining trends and thus acted with scienter. In assessing loss causation, the court acknowledged that the parties agreed Twitters stock declined at two points, April 28 & 29 and July 28 through August 3, and held that there was a genuine dispute regarding whether a causal connection existed between the defendants statements and the stock declines. Finally, the court held that because defendants had not shown they were entitled to summary judgment with respect to the Section 10(b) claim, they could not prevail on summary adjudication of plaintiffs Section 20(a) claim. On May 18, 2020, the court issued a clarifying order addressing two additional statements from the February 5, 2015 earnings call, relating to ad-engagement and timeline-view growth. Because plaintiffs confined their support for those two statements to a single footnote in their summary judgment opposition without any supporting evidence, the court held that plaintiffs had not adequately raised a genuine dispute regarding the two statements. And, on May 19, 2020, the court granted defendants motion to preclude from plaintiffs verdict form unpled allegations regarding statements by Twitters then-CFO regarding churn during the February 5, 2015 earnings call. While plaintiffs contended that their inclusion of the churn statements in their summary judgment opposition was sufficient to warrant leave to amend, the court denied the request because Plaintiffs had not demonstrated good cause for their failure to amend their complaint earlier. Trial is currently set to begin on September 20, 2021. In re Slack Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case. No. 19-CIV-05370 (San Mateo Superior Court, Aug. 12, 2020); Dennee v. Slack Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-05857-SI (N.D. Cal., Apr. 21, 2020) Slowed Growth And Service Disruptions After Direct ListingSlack Technologies, Inc. offers workplace collaboration software that brings together people, applications and data, often replacing or significantly supplanting the use of email within an organization. The Slack'