The Micron Technology insider selling lawsuit is a shareholder derivative case filed in January 2025 accusing CEO Sanjay Mehrotra of selling roughly $70 million in company stock while executives allegedly concealed weakening demand for Micron’s NAND flash memory. It was filed first in Florida, voluntarily dismissed, and refiled in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. A separate securities fraud class action built on the same underlying facts was dismissed by a federal judge in February 2026 and abandoned by the plaintiffs shortly afterward.
What Triggered the Lawsuits
On December 18, 2024, Micron released its first-quarter fiscal 2025 earnings and disclosed a sharper-than-expected revenue decline in its NAND flash business. Guidance for the next quarter came in well below Wall Street estimates: adjusted earnings of $1.33 to $1.53 per share against consensus of $1.92, and sales of $7.7 billion to $8.1 billion against the $8.99 billion analysts had expected. Micron attributed the miss to weakness in consumer-oriented markets.1Newsfilecorp. MU Investor Deadline
The stock dropped roughly 12 to 13 percent in extended trading.2CNBC. Micron Shares Plunge on Weak Second-Quarter Guidance Some plaintiff firms later described the decline as more than 16 percent.3PR Newswire. Investor Deadline Monday Within weeks, two lawsuits were on file.
The Insider Selling Allegations Against Sanjay Mehrotra
The insider selling claims live in a shareholder derivative suit, Silva v. Micron Technology Inc. et al., filed January 22, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by shareholder Nathan C. Silva. The nine-count complaint alleged that CEO Sanjay Mehrotra sold nearly 700,000 shares of Micron stock — worth approximately $70 million — while he possessed material non-public information about deteriorating demand, in the months leading up to the December 2024 earnings report.4Law360. Micron Faces Insider Trading Suit in New Court
The complaint named Mehrotra, CFO Mark Murphy, and seven board members as defendants: Richard M. Beyer, Lynn A. Dugle, Steve Gomo, Linnie Haynesworth, Mary Pat McCarthy, Bob Swan, and MaryAnn Wright.5Bloomberg Law. Micron Board Leaders Overstated Chip Demand, Investor Suit Says Beyond the trading itself, the suit alleged that Micron executives made false and misleading statements throughout 2023 and 2024 claiming demand was recovering because of artificial intelligence applications, when internal indicators allegedly suggested otherwise. It challenged a November 2023 proxy statement as having solicited director reelection and executive compensation votes under false pretenses, and it faulted the company for spending more than $300 million on share buybacks while the stock price was allegedly inflated.6Grabar Law Office. Micron CEO Accused of Insider Trading in Fla. Investor Suit
The nine counts included violations of the Securities Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs’ team included Joshua H. Grabar of Grabar Law Office, William J. Cook of Cook Law PA, and attorneys from Rigrodsky Law PA.6Grabar Law Office. Micron CEO Accused of Insider Trading in Fla. Investor Suit
Refiled in Idaho
The Silva case did not stay in Florida. By February 2025, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Florida action and refiled in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, where Micron is headquartered.4Law360. Micron Faces Insider Trading Suit in New Court The current status of the refiled Idaho derivative case is not established in available reporting.
The Parallel Securities Fraud Class Action Was Dismissed
The insider selling suit ran alongside a securities fraud class action, Klein v. Micron Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00191, filed in January 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho before Judge B. Lynn Winmill.7PACER Monitor. Klein v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al It was brought on behalf of investors who bought Micron common stock during a class period running from March 29, 2023, through December 18, 2024.8Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. Micron Technology, Inc. The lead plaintiff deadline was March 10, 2025.9PR Newswire. The Gross Law Firm Reminds Micron Investors of the Pending Class Action Lawsuit
The amended complaint identified 32 statements alleged to be materially false or misleading. Many were public remarks by Mehrotra, including comments from late March 2023 expressing confidence in “long-term demand” and predicting the memory and storage market would “grow to a new record in calendar 2025,” and mid-2024 statements that Micron was “well positioned to deliver a substantial revenue record in fiscal 2025.” Plaintiffs argued those forecasts clashed with deteriorating NAND consumer conditions and supported the case with a confidential witness said to have knowledge of Micron’s internal “Flash Reports” and an expert opinion from Arcady Zaydenberg on late-2024 inventory levels.10A&O Shearman. In re Micron Technology Inc.
On February 3, 2026, Judge Winmill granted Micron’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding that plaintiffs had not adequately shown Micron intended to mislead investors about its demand forecasts.11Law360. Micron Beats Investor Suit Over Demand Forecasts The court found that many of the challenged statements were long-term projections that proved broadly consistent with Micron’s actual revenue trajectory, since overall revenue continued to grow even as NAND sales softened. Several statements qualified as non-actionable puffery or fell within the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s safe harbor for forward-looking statements.10A&O Shearman. In re Micron Technology Inc.
The dismissal was without prejudice, and the court gave plaintiffs 30 days to file a second amended complaint. They chose not to. On April 3, 2026, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The case was formally terminated on May 14, 2026, a final order of dismissal was signed on May 28, 2026, and no appeal was pursued.7PACER Monitor. Klein v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al
The class action’s dismissal does not resolve the derivative insider trading case, which rests on different legal theories directed at individuals rather than the corporation.
Executive Stock Sales After the Suits Were Filed
Mehrotra continued selling Micron shares under pre-arranged trading plans after the litigation began. A June 2025 SEC Form 4 filing showed him selling 7,500 shares across four transactions on June 6 and 9, 2025, at prices around $110 per share, under a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan adopted on August 8, 2024.12Micron Technology. SEC Form 4 Filing
CFO Mark Murphy, also a Silva defendant, sold 34,000 shares at about $109 per share in July 2025 and 126,000 shares at roughly $225 per share in October 2025, for a combined value exceeding $32 million.13SEC Form 4. Micron Technology, Inc. Insider Trading Activity Both executives’ sales were made under 10b5-1 trading plans, which set a schedule of trades in advance and are designed to insulate executives from insider trading claims by removing their discretion over timing.
Where Things Stand
The securities fraud class action is over. The derivative insider selling case against Mehrotra, Murphy, and the seven named directors was refiled in Idaho in February 2025, and its status beyond that refiling is not established in available reporting. Micron’s underlying financial results have kept improving through the litigation: for the quarter ended February 27, 2025, the company reported revenue of $8.05 billion, up from $5.82 billion a year earlier, and net income of $1.58 billion, nearly double the prior-year quarter.14SEC. Micron Technology 10-Q, Quarter Ended February 27, 2025 That revenue trajectory was central to the class action court’s reasoning that the challenged demand statements were not shown to be knowingly false.