Securities Regulation Daily Wrap Up, FRAUD AND MANIPULATION—Assignment of Boeing fraud claims cannot clear Blue Chip standing hurdle, (Oct 16, 2026)

By Rodney F. Tonkovic, J.D.

More details about an assignation did not change the result.

A district court dismissed with prejudice an action brought against The Boeing Company and its former CEO, holding that an assignee lacked standing to assert fraud claims. The court acknowledged that the assignment did not appear to have been a tactical effort to create standing, but the determinative fact that the plaintiff did not actually purchase or sell securities remained. As a result, the assignee lacked standing and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice (Value Recapture Partners, LLC v. The Boeing Company, No. 1:23-cv-16550 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2026)).

Assignation. The underlying case alleges that Boeing and then-CEO Dennis A. Muilenburg made false and misleading statements about the October 2018 and March 2019 crashes of two Boeing 737 MAX airplanes. Two investment funds, which had purchased Boeing stock in 2019, had assigned their fraud claims to plaintiff Value Recapture Partners in July 2020 as part of a wind-down.

The court had previously sided with Boeing, finding that Value Recapture lacked standing to assert fraud claims in February 2026 and dismissing the first amended complaint. According to the court, the assignor had expressly assigned its claims to Value Recapture to generate standing in this action. As a result, the case fits squarely within the policy concerns identified in the Blue Chip purchaser-seller requirement, and would allow the assignee to litigate "from the sidelines without risk."

SAC. Boeing moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, offering the same arguments as before, namely that: Value Recapture lacked standing; the claims were time-barred; or the complaint failed to state a claim. The court again only reached the issue of lack of standing and dismissed the complaint.

The second amended complaint fleshed out the details of how Value Recapture was assigned its claims. Here, Value Recapture argued that the assignment was made through the ordinary course of business (i.e., to effectuate the wind-down) and not to create standing and that this suit does not implicate the policy concerns articulated in Blue Chip.

While there was more background in this complaint, the court said that the determinative facts remained the same and Value Recapture lacked standing to bring this lawsuit. The court agreed that the assignment was likely not tactical, but Blue Chip and its progeny clearly define plaintiffs having standing to bring suit under Rule 10b-5 as having actually purchased or sold securities—a group into which Value Recapture does not fit. The fact that the assignment occurred after litigation against Boeing had commenced also raised red flags in the eyes of the court.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-16550.

Judge: Kendall, V.

Attorneys: Jordan Aaron Finfer (Patzik, Frank & Samotny Ltd.) for Value Recapture Partners LLC. John F. Hartmann (Kirkland & Ellis LLP) for The Boeing Company.

Companies: Value Recapture Partners LLC; The Boeing Company

MainStory: TopStory FraudManipulation GCNNews IllinoisNews