Aurora Cannabis Inc.

This securities class action seeks to protect investors that purchased Aurora Cannabis Inc.’s (“Aurora“) securities between September 11, 2019 and December 20, 2019 (the “Class Period“).

This securities class action relates to the Defendants releasing core documents and making other statements containing material misrepresentations about the financial health of Aurora Cannabis Inc. (”Aurora”). These misrepresentations claimed that the Company’s sales of cannabis were high and that revenue was continuing to increase as a result of consumer demand, when in fact demand for cannabis was far outstripped by supply capacity at that time. Aurora also claimed that construction was progressing well at facilities meant to address this apparitional consumer demand, when Aurora in fact knew that such expanded production was not addressing a market need. These misrepresentations had the effect of distorting the investment risk and artificially inflating the Company’s perceived value and share price.

In September of 2019, the Defendant Aurora released quarterly statements (which Individual Defendants Terry Booth and Glen Ibbott certified as not containing misrepresentations), an Annual Report, and hosted an investor conference call in which the Company claimed that it expected adjusted EBITDA to improve due to higher sales, improved gross margins, and prudent Selling, General and Administrative Expenses (“SG&A”) growth, as well as strong selling of products that was already occurring at the retail level at that time. These statements also claimed that Aurora expected to see growth in its core business, and a plateau of demand between then and year end.

In October of 2019, these misrepresentations about the Company’s financial footing were compounded by news releases claiming both that construction was going well at facilities being built to capture more of the burgeoning cannabis market, and that business and sales were going well writ large.

Aurora subsequently released quarterly statements on November 14, 2019 that corrected the bullish claims made previously, by stating that:

1. 1Q 2020 sales dropped by 25%;
2. Aurora had distribution problems and that they monitor daily sales from the provinces to the retailers very carefully;
3. Aurora’s adjusted EBITDA loss for 1Q was $39.7 million compared to $26.6 million the prior quarter; 
4. The decrease in EBITDA was primarily due to decreased revenue; and
5. Aurora was halting construction of its Aurora Nordic 2 facility in Denmark and deferring final construction of its facility in Medicine Hat, Alberta.

The day after these quarterlies were released, Aurora’s common shares closed down approximately 18%, from $56.28 to $43.08 on an adjusted basis.

Finally, after a series of news articles addressed problems with demand for Aurora’s products (including Marijuana Business Daily reporting that German pharmacies were proscribed by their regulator from selling Aurora products in 1Q 2020) Aurora’s Chief Corporate Officer Cam Battley resigned.

UPDATES

On May 3, 2024, the parties attended a court hearing whereby Aurora advised the court that it wished to advance a motion to strike sections of the Investor’s amended claim dated March 8, 2024. The hearing took place on November 18, 2024. We are currently waiting for the Court’s decision.

Canadian Court Sees Through Aurora Cannabis Inc.’s Smoke and Mirrors

TORONTO (July 3, 2025).  Berger Montague (Canada) PC, a Canadian law firm that represents Canadian investors, is pleased to report that the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta correctly released its decision in Landry v. Aurora Cannabis Inc., 2025 ABKB 387, on June 25, 2025 allowing, Canadian investors to advance forward with their claims that they overpaid for Aurora’s stock. 

Aurora Cannabis blew a lot of smoke, adding over a year of delays to investors getting access to justice, had requested that the Court strike out the Amended Statement of Claim as an abuse of process, in whole or in part. 

The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta denied Aurora’s demand and confirmed that there was no abuse of process in the commencement of the action. The Court held that the entire action may continue advancing causes of action under both the Alberta Securities Act and common law for negligent misrepresentation.  This situation is consistent with our client’s court decision in Stevens v. Ithaca Energy Inc., 2019 ABQB 474; a cross-border and transatlantic certified shareholder class action, which has received substantial support across Canada. 

The Plaintiffs now intend to continue with their application for permission to proceed under the Securities Act and for certification as a class proceeding.  

In the June 25, 2025 decision, the Court denied Aurora Cannabis Inc.’s application to strike the amended statement of claim, or, alternatively, disallow the addition of an investor to the pleading and other amendments, including the clarification of the two forms of remedies being sought by the investors.  Importantly, for the first time the Court has addressed the issue of how damages are to be measured by “last in, first out” (“LIFO”) or “first in, first out” (“FIFO”) and held that this is an issue to be determined at the trial because the definition of the class does not require proof of loss.  Moreover, the Court held that the investor’s common law claim was viable and his remedy (i.e., to be put back in the financial condition prior to the public correction) is an issue to be resolved at trial.