The D & O Diary : Directors and Officers Liability and Insurance : The D & O Diary : Kevin LaCroix : Securities Laws, Corporate Fraud, D & O Litigation

One of the more vexing litigation problems to emerge recently has been the proliferation of multi-jurisdiction litigation, where corporate defendants are forced to litigate essentially the same claim in multiple courts at the same time. This problem is a particular issue in the context of M&A litigation, although not contained to those kinds of lawsuits. In the midst of what has become essentially a jurisdictional competition, Delaware’s courts have tried to establish themselves as the preferred and presumptive court for corporate litigation.

As discussed here, in June 2012, in a high-profile and controversial example of the efforts of Delaware courts to control litigation involving Delaware corporations, Vice Chancellor Travis Laster refused to give effect to the judgment of a California federal court dismissing a derivative suit parallel to the case pending in Delaware.

However, in a harsh rebuke to Laster, on April 4, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court entered an opinion reversing the Chancery Court ruling and recognizing the California federal court’s prior dismissal. The Supreme Court’s opinion represents a recognition that principles of federalism and comity require Delaware’s courts to respect the preclusive effects of the California court’s judgment.

Background

In September 2010, Allergan pled guilty to a criminal misdemeanor for misbranding its Botox product and paid a total of $600 million in civil and criminal fines. Various plaintiffs’ firms filed multiple derivative suits both in federal court in California and in Delaware Chancery Court. The California cases went forward more quickly, while in Delaware, at least one of the plaintiffs sought to pursue a books and records action against the company, in order to obtain further information pertinent to the company’s board’s actions. The Delaware plaintiff used the information and documentation to amend its complaint. The California plaintiffs ultimately also obtained the same information and documentation and supplemented their complaint as well.

The defendants moved to dismiss the California action on the ground that the plaintiffs had not made a demand on the Allergan board to pursue the claims, nor had they established demand futility. The California court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants then sought to have the Delaware action dismissed, arguing that the collateral estoppel effect of the California dismissal was preclusive of the demand futility issue.

In an extensive June 11, 2012 opinion (here), Vice Chancellor Laster firmly rejected the suggestion that the California court’s prior ruling compelled him to dismiss the Delaware action. He relied on two grounds in rejecting the argument that the California judgment is preclusive; first, he found that the California judgment was preclusive only as to the individual California shareholder plaintiffs, and second, he found that the California plaintiff did not adequately represent Allergan. The defendants pursued an interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.

The April 3, 2013 Opinion

In an April 4, 2013 opinion written by Justice Carolyn Berger for the full Court, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Chancery Court’s ruling, holding that the Vice Chancellor had erred with respect to both aspects of his ruling. The Supreme Court concluded that the California judgment was preclusive of the Delaware case and also rejected Vice Chancellor Laster’s conclusion that the California plaintiffs were inadequate representatives.

In rejecting the Chancery Court’s conclusion that the California judgment was not preclusive, the Supreme Court noted that the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause requires courts to give full force and effect to the judgments of other jurisdiction’s courts, including the judgments of federal courts. Vice Chancellor Laster’s refusal to give effect to the California judgment was based on a “mistaken premise” that the question of the effect of the California judgment was controlled by “demand futility” law controlled by Delaware legal principles.

The Supreme Court stated that “once a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final judgment … a successive case is governed by principles of collateral estoppel, under the full faith and credit doctrine, and not by demand futility law,” adding that “in the Court of Chancery, the motion to dismiss based on collateral estoppel was about federalism, comity, and finality. It should have been addressed exclusively on that basis.’  Delaware’s “undisputed interest” in governing the internal affairs of its corporations “must yield to the stronger national interests that all state and federal courts have in respecting each other’s judgments.”

The Supreme Court also rejected the Chancery Court’s conclusion that the California plaintiffs were inadequate plaintiffs. The Supreme Court noted that Vice Chancellor Laster had “sua sponte announced and applied an irrebutable presumption that derivative plaintiffs who file their complaints without seeking books and records very shortly after the announcement of a ‘corporate trauma’ are inadequate representatives.” The Supreme Court said that “we reject the ‘fast filer’ irrebutable presumption of inadequacy.” The Court noted that “undoubtedly there will be cases where a fast filing stockholder also is an inadequate representative” but that “there is no record support for the trial court’s premise that stockholders who filed quickly, without bringing a Section 220 books and records action, are a priori acting on behalf of their law firms instead of the corporation.” The Court added that although it “understands the trial court’s concerns about fast filers,” the remedies “for the problems they create should be directed at the lawyers, not the stockholder plaintiffs or their complaints.”

Discussion

As I discussed at the time, Vice Chancellor Laster’s opinion in this case was a broadside against certain segments of the plaintiffs’ bar, who, in his view, rush to file actions in other jurisdictions’ courts, to the detriment of litigants that proceeded more deliberately by first pursuing a books and records action in Delaware court and then in due course filing an action in Delaware based on the results of the books and records search.

While Laster’s effort to create a Delaware-centric solution to the chaos of multi-jurisdiction litigation is understandable, it put the defendants in the unacceptable position not only have having to face a multi-front war,  but also having to fight the war in piecemeal fashion, rather than trying to move toward a single, comprehensive solution.

The Supreme Court’s opinion does not directly take on the problems arising from multi-jurisdiction litigation, but merely recognizes that basic principles of “federalism, comity and finality” required that the judgment of California court be given full force and effect. However, the Supreme Court did reject the Chancery Court’s suggestion that the plaintiffs in the California case were inadequate representatives simply because they failed to first pursue a books and records action before launching their suit. As Alison Frankel noted in an April 5, 2013 post on her On the Case blog (here), the Supreme Court Opinion “puts an end to Chancery’s recent insistence that shareholder lawyers seek corporate books and records before filing derivative complaints.”

In effect, Laster’s Chancery Court opinion seemingly embodied a belief that both that Delaware’s courts should be in charge, and that if the Delaware courts were in charge, an orderly process would replace the unseemly spectacle of multi-jurisdiction litigation. There is no doubt that the curse of multi-jurisdiction litigation imposes enormous, duplicative costs on the litigation targets. But Vice Chancellor’s Delaware-centric manifesto threatened to exacerbate the problem rather than solve it, presenting as it did the prospect for multiple conflicting rulings in different jurisdictions on identical issues.  The Supreme Court’s opinion suggests a recognition that the curse of multiple-jurisdiction litigation won’t be resolved by Delaware’s courts grabbing authority or disdaining other courts. 

In its April 4, 2013 client alert (here), the Wachtell Lipton law firm noted that the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling “makes clear that Delaware is sensitive to the unfairness that multiple parallel lawsuits can work on corporations and their directors and is prepared to enforce scrupulously rules of interstate comity that limit this mischief.”

The Delaware Supreme Court's decision is a welcome outcome for corporate litigants. As the Wilson Sonsini law firm noted in its April 2013 client alert about the decision, the ruling "may calm the concerns of those facing multi-forum shareholder litigation that a resolution on the merits in one forum will be given preclusive effect in Delaware (and presumably other jurisdictions)."

Just the same, though defendants undoubtedly will welcome the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling, it will not eliminate the problem of multiple-jurisdiction litigation. The unseemly scramble of competing claimants to pursue claims against companies experiencing adverse developments or involved in corporate transactions will continue. The solution to the problem of multi-jurisdiction litigation has been and remains particularly elusive.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I detailed in recent blog posts (here and here), these days virtually every public company M&A transaction is likely to involve M&A-related litigation. For that reason, M&A litigation represents a significant liability exposure for directors and officers of the companies involved in the M&A transaction and they have a keen interest in taking steps to try to reduce that exposure.

These concerns are the topic of a new paper from Chubb entitled “Director Liability Loss Prevention in Mergers and Acquisitions” (here). The paper was written by D&O maven Dan Bailey of the Bailey and Cavalieri law firm. (Readers know that The D&O Diary is a big fan of Dan’s; we recently published a guest post by Dan on Cyber Liability issues.) The paper “reviews the basic legal duties of directors in this context and summarizes many loss control procedures for directors when addressing a proposed M&A transaction.”

The paper notes at the outset that directors “are routinely rewarded” for their hard work on a proposed M&A transaction “by being sued.” The shareholder plaintiffs “typically allege the directors acted improperly in investigating, negotiating, approving, rejecting or disclosing the acquisition transaction, regardless of how thoroughly and prudently the directors acted.”  Though the lawsuits cannot be prevented, “directors can increase the defensibility of those lawsuits and improve the quality of their decision-making process with respect to a proposed acquisition by anticipating and implementing various loss prevention practices.”

The paper outlines the basic legal principles that define the standard of conduct for directors of the target company. The paper then goes on to outline the steps directors can take to try to manage their liability exposure. Among other things, the paper states that “directors should create a record demonstrating that they carefully and thoroughly considered relevant information regarding the proposed transact.” Directors should also “obtain advice from experienced, qualified and independent experts in each of the relevant substantive areas.” In addition, “only independent and disinterested outside directors should act on behalf of the company with respect to the proposed transaction.” In addition, “directors should seek to obtain the best value available for the company,” in the specific ways that the paper enumerates. Finally, the company must manage the timing and content of its disclosures of the transaction in order to try to minimize disclosure-related risks.

There are also a number of transaction-related pre-litigation strategies the company can implement to improve the companies ability to defend the inevitable litigation. These include, among other things, amending the by-laws to designate a specific jurisdiction as the exclusive venue for shareholder suits involving governance issues; retaining qualified defense counsel in advance of the transaction; develop an external communication protocol to reduce disclosure –related risks; and the provision of detailed directors training in anticipating of the takeover process, including the “likely sequence of events, recommended governance practices and various best practices related to the proposed transaction.”

Finally, the paper reviews the indemnification and insurance issues relevant in the M&A context.  Among other things the paper discusses the need for the target company to have in place prior to the closing “a prepaid, noncancelable, extended run-off policy that cannot be amended or affected in any way by the acquiring company or subsequent management.”

Another M&A related insurance topic that the paper does not discuss is the possible need for representations and warranties insurance protection. Readers may be interested to note that the Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS is hosting a webinar on Tuesday March 19, 2013 at 11:00 am EDT on the topic of Representations and Warranties insurance coverage. Information about this free webinar can be found here.

D&O Year in Review: Once again, my good friends at Troutman Sanders have published their annual roundup of D&O insurance coverage decisions. The publication, which is entitled “D&O Professional Liability: A Year in Review,” which provides a comprehensive overview of coverage decisions from the world of D&O in the last year, can be found here.

Board Minutes: I recently was asked to attend a meeting of the board of directors of a large financial institution client. While I was in the meeting, one director asked my views about board meeting minutes: should the board minutes be very detailed? Or should they be bare-boned? Which was better from a risk management standpoint? From the way the director asked the question, I knew that that was a topic on which he himself had strong views, and his manner also suggested that this topic was an issue of some debate at the board level. I looked across the table to the company’s general counsel, to see how I should handle the question. Her face said “Don’t throw me under the bus.” So all I said was that the question of board minutes is an important topic that should be discussed with your in-house counsel and if needed your outside counsel.

The question about the appropriate level of detail in board minutes is a recurring question. There is, in fact, no single right answer. The correct answer will vary, depending on the age and size of the company, as well as the advice of the company’s counsel. There are a number of important considerations to keep in mind, which are reviewed in a March 6, 2013 JD Supra Law News article written by Stephen Honig of the Duane Morris firm and entitled “Director Liability: Corporate Minutes as Trojan Horse” (here). The article reviews the liability issues that may arise from the board minutes and also reviews how the ground rules change as companies mature and grow larger. The article reviews the legal touchstones and lays out the basic ground rules. The article concludes by saying that directors “should remember that they are protected if they utilize robust process in the board room and are well-served if they document that process.”

Is a Pending Appellate Decision Interpreting Morrison Off the Docket?: For some time, we have been awaiting a ruling from the Second Circuit in the hedge fund claimants’ appeal of a district court dismissal of their action against Porsche and certain of its directors and officers. The hedge funds, which had shorted Volkswagen stock in the belief that its share price would fall, claimed that Porsche misled investors by denying through much of 2008 that it intended to acquire VW. Porsche later disclosed that it had been positioning itself to acquire the company.

As discussed here, in a December 30, 2010 ruling, Southern District of New York Harold Baer granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. In granting the motion, Baer relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in National Australia Bank v. Morrison. Judge Baer found that because the securities underlying the swap instruments the hedge funds had acquired were traded on the German stock exchange, acquiring the swaps was the “functional equivalent of trading the underlying shares on a German exchange."

The hedge funds filed an appeal of Judge Baer’s dismissal. As discussed here, while the appeal was pending, the Second Circuit issued a ruling in the Absolute Activist Value Master Fund case interpreting Morrison’s application to non-exchange traded securities. The court held that in order to pursue a securities claim in connection with a transaction in non-exchange securities, the claimant has to allege either “irrevocable liability was incurred or title transferred within the United States.” I noted at the time that the Absolute Activist Value Master Fund case The Second Circuit’s holding in the Absolute Activist Value Master Fund case, in which the Second Circuit said among other things that the identify of the securities involved in the transaction is not determinative, would seem to suggest that the district court’s holding in the Porsche case may not withstand scrutiny on appeal.

Ever since the Second Circuit issued its ruling in the Absolute Activist Value Master Fund case, observers have been awaiting the Second Circuit’s ruling in the Porsche case. However, on March 6, 2013, Bloomberg reported (here) that the hedge funds have filed a motion to withdraw their appeal in the Porsche case. The Second Circuit must grant the motion to withdraw, but assuming it is granted, it appears that the appeal would be withdrawn, meaning that the lower court dismissal of the case would stand. The Bloomberg article notes that four cases against Porsche and certain of its directors and officers remain pending in Germany. It appears that the hedge funds may have decided to focus their efforts on the Germany cases.

In any event, if the Second Circuit grants the motion to withdraw, the long-anticipated resolution of the hedge funds’ appeal of the dismissal will not be forthcoming. That would mean at a minimum that the Absolute Activist Value Master Fund ruling will continue to represent the standard for securities cases involving non-U.S. entity defendants whose shares do not trade on U.S. exchanges.

I can’t help having a “that’s too bad” reaction. I have been looking forward to seeing what the Second Circuit was going to do with the appeal in the Porsche case.

One Director Defendant in Latest FDIC Failed Bank Suit: As the FDIC has been ramping up its litigation against the directors and officers of failed banks, one of the things that has been hard to figure is how the agency decides who it is going to sue. Sometimes it files cases only against former bank officers, sometimes it includes director defendants. And now in the latest case to be filed, the FDIC has filed a suit against only a single director defendant. However, in this case, there is some information available to explain why the one director was the only defendant.

On February 22, 2013, the FDIC, acting in its capacity as the receiver of the failed Carson River Community Bank, filed an action in the District of Nevada against James M. Jacobs, a former director of the bank. A copy of the FDIC”s complaint can be found here. Regulators closed the bank on February 26, 2010, which means that the agency filed its compliant just before the third-year anniversary of the bank’s closure. The sole defendant is described in the complaint as the co-founder and as a stockholder of the bank, as well as a director in the bank. Importantly for purposes of the suit, the complaint also states that Jacobs also had ownership interests in certain Oklahoma banks that participated in some of the loans that the FDIC referenced in the complaint.

As detailed in a March 1, 2013 memo by W. Bard Brockman of the Bryan Cave law firm (here), according to the FDIC’s complaint, the three subject loans were participated out to two Oklahoma banks owned by Mr. Jacobs’ family and for which Mr. Jacobs served as a director. The other directors on the Senior Loan Committee knew about Mr. Jacobs’ interest in the participating banks, but they did not know that Mr. Jacobs allegedly had secretly arranged for the Oklahoma participating banks to have preferential rights to repayment upon default. The Oklahoma banks were ultimately paid in full and Carson River Community Bank sustained most of the loss on the loans. This conduct, the FDIC alleges, constituted a breach of Mr. Jacobs’ fiduciary duty to Carson River Community Bank.

Brockman speculates that there may be an additional reason why the other loan committee members were not named as defendants because “Nevada has a very forgiving standard of liability for corporate directors. Under the Nevada corporate code, a director is not liable unless it is proven that: (a) the director’s act or failure to act constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties; and (b) the breach of those duties involved intentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of law.” Brockman suggests that the FDIC must not have had sufficient facts to support an allegation that the other directors had committed “intentional misconduct, fraud, or a knowing violation of the law.” Brockman concludes by noting that this case is “a true factual outlier and it does not signal a trend that the FDIC will target single director defendants.”

A Break in the Action: For the next few days, I will be traveling overseas on business. The D&O Diary’s publication schedule (such as it is) will be disrupted for the next few days. I hope to resume the normal publication schedule during the week of March 18, 2013.

And Finally: A recurring topic of interest to everyone here is the question of why The Netherlands is sometimes referred to as Holland. This topic is amusingly explained in the accompanying video (with more information on the topic than you might have thought possible). Enjoy. (Sorry about the short commercial at the beginning.)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Plaintiff law firms continued to file lawsuits in connection with virtually every mergers and acquisitions transaction in 2012, according to an updated report from Cornerstone Research. The February 2013 report, which is entitled “Shareholder Litigation Involving Mergers and Acquistions” and which was authored by Robert M. Daines of Stanford Law School and Olga Koumrian of Cornerstone Research, shows that plaintiff law firms filed lawsuits on behalf of shareholders in 96 percent of M&A deals valued over $500 million and 93 percent of transactions valued over $100 million. Cornerstone Research’s February 28, 2013 press release regarding the report can be found here. The report itself can be found here.

According to the report, the litigation rate involving M&A deals in 2012 was essentially unchanged from 2011. In both 2011 and 2012, about 93% of all deals valued over $100 million attracted litigation, and 96% of all deals valued over $500 million attracted litigation. Deals valued over $100 million attracted an average of 4.8 lawsuits per deal in 2012 (down slightly from 5.3 per deal in 2011) and deals valued over $500 million attracted an average of 5.4 lawsuits in 2012 (down from 6.1 in 2011).

The report notes that after a contrary trend in recent years, in 2012 a larger percentage of cases were filed in Delaware. In 2012 39% of all M&A lawsuits were filed in Delaware compared to only 25% as recently as 2012. For Delaware Corporations, 16% of deals were challenged only in Delaware, compared with 9% in 2011 and only 2% in 2009.

Of the 58% of cases filed in 2012 that had been resolved, the majority (64%) settled. 33% of the resolved cases were dismissed and 3% were voluntarily withdrawn. (These case outcomes are roughly equal to prior years, although with a certain number of the 2012 cases yet unresolved the settlement rate is slightly higher than prior years.)

Of the 2012 cases that were settled, 81% of the settlements involved only additional disclosures (compared to 88% in 2011 and 76% in 2010). According to the report, “the parties in only one settlement acknowledged that litigation contributed to an increase in the merger price.” The deal termination fee was reduced in four cases and the parties reached agreement about appraisal rights in six cases. There were two large settlements in 2012, both relating to transactions announced in 2011: the $110 million settlement in the El Paso/Kinder Morgan case and the $49 million settlement in the Delphi Financial/Tokio Marine case.

The report includes a detailed table of the ten largest M&A lawsuit settlements during the period 2003-2012. As the report notes, most of the larger settlements in the table “included allegations of significant conflicts of interest.”

The average agreed-upon attorneys’ fee for the 2012 settlements was $725,000, The average fee in a disclosure only settlement was $540,000, down from $570,000 in 2011 and $710,000 in 2010. The report includes an analysis of the factors that influence the size of the fee request. The report notes that “plaintiff attorney fees appear to be influenced by the following factors: size of the settlement fund; other monetary benefit to shareholders; number of suits filed; time to settlement; and overall deal value.”

The report concludes with a review of the emerging litigation involving shareholder challenges relating to annual proxy votes and disclosures about executive compensation, which mounted quickly as 2012 progressed. The report notes that “as the 2013 proxy season approaches, this litigation may expand.”

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the following guest post, Kara Altenbaumer-Price (pictured) takes a look at two recent case decisions in which courts have declined attorneys’ fee awards in connection with non-cash class settlements. Kara is the Management & Professional Liability Counsel for insurance broker USI. 

Many thanks to Kara for her willingness to publish her article here. I welcome guest posts from responsible commentators on topics relevant to this blog. Any readers who are interested in publishing a guest post on this site are encouraged to contact me directly. 

Two recent cases striking down attorney fees awards raise questions about lawyer-driven class actions and the viability of suits aimed at garnering attorney fees rather than cash for the class plaintiffs. If the holding in either case gains traction, it could have a significant positive impact on D&O insurance, particularly in the area of merger-objection suits and efforts by carriers to stem the losses from these types of cases.    

In the first case, the Dallas Court of Appeals dealt a blow to plaintiffs’ lawyers pursuing so-called “bump up” cases in Texas state courts in September when it rejected a settlement that included cash to the lawyers, but none to the class of investors. Rocker v. Centex Corp. appears to have been a typical “bump-up” case in which shareholders of a company about to merge or be acquired file suit seeking to raise—or “bump up”—the purchase price of the company they hold shares in. 

The legacy of this case was thrown into uncertainty on November 30, 2012 when the Texas Supreme Court granted the review of the case without consideration of the merits and set aside the judgment pursuant to an agreement by the parties. Nonetheless, the case warrants discussion because the reversal did not call into question the merits of the lower appellate court decision.

The underlying case in Rocker v. Centex was not unusual, as it is not uncommon for the settlement of merger objection cases to include additional disclosures to the shareholders about the proposed deal, but no increase in share price and thus no cash to the shareholder class. Such settlements, however, usually involve hefty attorneys’ fees awards to the plaintiffs’ counsel. What was remarkable about Rocker v. Centex is that the Texas appellate court, however, refused to approve such a settlement, ruling that tort reform legislation passed several years ago in Texas prohibits such awards.

The court looked to a Texas Rules of Civil Procedure called the “coupon rule” that provides that “if any portion of the benefits recovered for the class are in the form of coupons or other noncash common benefits, the attorney fee awarded in the action must be in cash and noncash amounts in the same proportion as the recovery for the class.”   In Rocker v. Centex, the entire settlement to the class was a noncash benefit in the form of additional, material disclosures related to the deal. As a result, the court ruled that the plaintiffs’ attorneys could be awarded no cash—even if it meant that they had worked for free. The Centex case eliminates the incentive for plaintiffs’ counsel to bring cases—at least in Texas state courts—where the end goal is attorneys’ fees. If there really is a belief that the share price is too small, and the case causes a rise in the share price, then attorneys fees would still be justified and payable under the Centex ruling.

The second case actually arises in the context of privacy litigation, rather than securities class actions, but it tackled the same issue of class settlements than contain no cash to the class. A California federal district court rejected a settlement in a privacy class action against Facebook because the settlement included changes to Facebook, $10 million to organizations involved in internet privacy, and $10 million in attorneys fees, but no cash to the plaintiffs themselves. The court in Fraley v. Facebook  questioned the large size of the fee award. The court also rejected arguments by plaintiffs’ counsel estimating the value of the privacy changes to Facebook to the plaintiffs and questioned whether injunctive awards to plaintiffs can be assigned a value at all for assessing attorneys’ fees. Like the Rocker v. Centexcase, this case  potentially has huge implications for class actions pursued for the purpose of creating plaintiffs’ fee awards.

Both of these cases highlight the primary issue that defendants (and insurers) have with merger litigation (even though the Facebook case arose in another context, the principle is the same)—the notion that the cases exist not to ensure that the best deal is achieved for shareholders, but to make a quick and sizeable buck for plaintiffs attorneys. As Advisen wrote in its second quarter 2012 report that “it has been suggested, including by some judges presiding over these cases, that new filings are driven more by plaintiff’s attorneys seeking new sources of fee revenues than by the economics of mergers and acquisitions.” Companies, eager to close the deal, usually offer up a hasty settlement that includes large fee awards, to make the litigation go away. 

With 91 percent of merger deals above $100 million resulting in litigation according to Cornerstone, insurance carriers have taken note of this issue, which has turned D&O insurance from a low frequency, high severity product to a high-frequency product in the carrier’s view. Many have blamed the increase in M&A suits for the recent rise in D&O insurance rates. One solution to combat this issue is the introduction of separate M&A deductibles for public company D&O and exclusionary language for M&A cases that is creeping into 2012 and 2013 D&O insurance renewals.   Considering that coverage changes tend to lag behind the litigation trends, it will be interesting to watch this trend develop as carriers continue to try to manage losses associated with M&A cases.

Many have blamed the increase in M&A suits for the recent rise in D&O insurance rates. One solution to combat this issue is the introduction of separate M&A deductibles for public company D&O and exclusionary language for M&A cases that is creeping into 2012 and 2013 D&O insurance renewals.   Considering that coverage changes tend to lag behind the litigation trends, it will be interesting to watch this trend develop as carriers continue to try to manage losses associated with M&A cases.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I have frequently noted on this blog (most recently here), one of the most distinctive litigation phenomenon has been the rise in litigation involving M&A activity. It has gotten to the point that virtually every merger now also involves a lawsuit (or, more often, multiple suits). These cases have proven attractive to plaintiffs’ lawyers because the pressure to close the deal has allowed the claimants to attract a quick settlement, often involving an agreement to publish additional disclosures or adopt corporate therapeutics and the payment of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.

However, as noted in a November 9, 2012 post on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Reform by Boris Feldman of the Wilson Sonsini law firm, there recently has been a new twist to the M&A litigation phenomenon; increasingly, plaintiffs’ lawyers have “refined their business model” and now they aim to “keep the litigation alive post-close.” Moreover, Feldman notes, the plaintiffs are pursing these post-close M&A cases “even in situations where objective factors suggest a lack of merit to the claims: e.g., high premium; no contesting bidders; overwhelming shareholder approval; customary deal terms.”

Feldman posits three reasons that plaintiffs’ attorneys are pursuing these post-close merger claims. First, due to changes in the plaintiffs’ bar, some lawyers are struggling to modify their business model, as a result of which some lawyers have “decided to pursue cases that they would have let run dry in the past.”

Second, Feldman acknowledges that the post-close cases have their own in terrorem value, even if it is only a form of “nuisance value.” The continuing case subjects corporate executives to time-consuming and burdensome discovery, sometimes in the context of a deal that may or may not have worked out all that well. The case also threatens a trial on processes and analysis that led to the acquisition, a form of exposure the company may prefer to avoid. Therefore, Feldman notes, “even post-close suits have some ‘go away’ value to the surviving company.”

Third, Feldman speculates that at least some of the plaintiffs’ attorneys may be pursuing a longer term strategy, by showing that they are willing to persevere for years, even in a weak case, in the hope that the defendants “may just say ‘pay them and get rid of it’ before the deal closes.” By these lights, “a plaintiffs’ lawyer rationally could pursue a frivolous case, at great expense, post-close, even with low odds of getting a recovery, “simply as a way to improve the profitability of the rest of his inventory.”

Feldman notes that the post-close merger cases have their own peculiar dynamic, different than the dynamic of cases pre-close. Among other things, post-close, the plaintiffs’ lawyers have an incentive to try to drag things out. Pre-close, the plaintiffs’ lawyers want to accelerate procedures and discovery, to keep the pressure on the parties to the underlying transaction to settle the case. Post-close, the plaintiffs want to keep the case as long as they can, in part on the hope that as time goes by they might manage to find documents or other materials or information that will support their case, and in part on the hope that as time goes by, the defendants will get weary of the case and pay to make it go away.

According to Feldman, defendants in these post-close cases may want to take a more active role, and in particular actively push toward summary judgment. He suggests that though courts have been reluctant to grant summary judgment in the past, judges will “eventually decide that most merger claims are strikesuits and will extirpate them before trial.”

As support for this contention that more courts may be willing to grant summary judgment in post-close cases, Feldman cites the recent grant of summary judgment in favor of Intel in the case arising out of Intel’s acquisition of McAfee. (In a November 2, 2012 order (here), California Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the case, just two weeks prior to the scheduled trial date.)

With reference to the grant of summary judgment in the Intel case, Feldman argues that the plaintiffs’ Achilles Heel in the cases may be the exculpatory provisions in the Delaware Corporations Code, which preclude damage claims against directors for breaches of fiduciary duty unless plaintiffs can establish serious conflicts of interest or bad faith. Feldman contends that “it will be the rare case indeed where plaintiffs have such evidence against a director, much less a majority of the Board.” Feldman predicts that many more courts will be willing to jettison cases at the summary judgment stage on this basis.

Finally, Feldman notes that even if these cases survive summary judgment, they could prove difficult for the plaintiffs. The cases are challenging to try to settle, as there are no opportunities for non-monetary settlements and as the justification for additional deal consideration will be lacking after shareholder approval. At the same time, the cases will prove difficult for plaintiffs to try, as, Feldman suggests, “very few judges will be willing to second-guess the decisions of independent, well-advised boards of directors as to what their company was worth.” In the final analysis, Feldman suggests, the “ultimate irony” may be that even if plaintiffs’ keep their cases alive post-merger, they will have difficulty figuring out “a way to monetize them that survives judicial scrutiny.”

I think Feldman’s analysis is interesting, particularly his estimation of the strong likelihood that defendants will prevail if they push the post-close merger cases to summary judgment or trial. At the same time, however, I think it is important to note that Intel’s summary judgment victory was considered noteworthy precisely because it was so unusual for the defendant company to continue to fight the continuing litigation. (See for example, Nate Raymond’s commentary about the summary judgment ruling on the On the Case blog, here.)

Even if Feldman is right about the defendants’ prospects if they continue to fight these cases, the far likelier outcome is that the defendant companies will, as the plaintiffs’ undoubtedly hope, tire of the cases rather than fighting them and seek some type of a compromise. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs’ may continue to pursue post-close merger cases as a way to try to extract something from the merger, even if they are unable to secure a pre-close settlement, simply because the likeliest outcome is that they will eventually get rewarded for doing so. Whether more companies will, like Intel, prove willing to fight the cases remains to be seen.

Rating Agencies Take Another Hit: In a post last week, I noted the decision of an Australian Court holding S&P liable for ratings of certain complex financial instruments. The rating agencies took another hit later in the week, in a decision by an Illinois state court judge denying the motion of McGraw-Hill, S&P’s parent, to dismiss an action brought against the rating agency by the Illinois attorney general. The court’s ruling that the alleged misrepresentations are not protected opinion is particularly noteworthy.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan had commenced the action, alleging that during the period 2001 through 2008, S&P had misled the investing public by claiming that its ratings of certain structured financial products were independent, objective and unbiased. The AG alleged that the rating agency’s repeated representations regarding its independence and objectivity were demonstrably false. The Illinois AG asserted claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The defendants moved to dismiss.

In her November 7, 2012 opinion (here), Illinois (Cook County) Circuit Court Judge Mary Ann Mason denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Her opinion emphasized certain alleged attributes of the ratings themselves. That is, first, that because of the alleged “opaque” nature of the securities (meaning that there was no ready source of information by which investors could otherwise gauge the investments), the rating agency’s assertion that its ratings were independent, objective and unbiased were “of enhanced importance to investors.” Second, because the opinions allegedly were issued pursuant to an “issuer pays” business model, as a part of which the rating agency’s had an incentive to provide the rating the issuer desired in order to secure future business, “allowed the profit motive to override its objectivity and independence.”

The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that its ratings represent protected opinion. However, as Judge Mason noted, the AG’s claims are not based on the rating agency’s opinions but rather its “repeated statements of fact regarding S&P’s independence and objectivity.” Judge Mason expressly rejected the defendants’ arguments that the ratings were protected by the first amendment, because the statements about the agency’s objectivity and independence and not simply opinions; that are, Judge Mason said, “verifiable representations regarding the manner in which S&P assures the integrity and independence central to the credibility of its ratings.”

Judge Mason went on to note that “the logical extension “ of the defendants’ arguments “would be to immunize rating agencies from investor claims based on investor claims clearly intended to influence those same investors.” She noted that the entire value of the system from which the rating agencies hope to profit “depends on the investing public’s confidence in the credibility and independence of its ratings.” If the investors lack that confidence, the “ratings lose their value to issuers and issuers lack motivation to seek out the agency’s ratings in the future.”

Judge Mason’s ruling is interesting and her reasoning could be persuasive to other courts, at least in other cases in which the misrepresentation that rating agency defendants are alleged to have made relate to the agencies’ supposed independence and objectivity. However, as Alison Frankel notes in an interesting November 9, 2012 post on her On the Case blog (here), Judge Mason’s ruling may not open the floodgates; in particular, as Frankel notes, federal laws may preempt claims against rating agencies involving post-2007 conduct. It could be that Judge Mason’s reasoning is less useful in cases involving alleged misrepresentations after 2007, and the pre-2007 alleged misrepresentations may be untimely.

Libor Investigations in Asia: In earlier posts (refer, for example, here), I have examined the regulatory investigations into possible manipulation of the Libor benchmark interest rates. A number of countries are also investigating possible Libor manipulation, including countries in Asia. As detailed in an interesting November 2012 memorandum from the Ince & Co. law firm entitled “LIBOR – The Asia Story” (here), the Asian countries investigating possible Libor or other benchmark interest rate manipulation include Singapore, Korea, and Japan. Interestingly, the related developments in Singapore include a lawsuit brought by an RBS trader who claims he was wrongfully terminated for his involvement in benchmark rate manipulation in order to deflect attention from the bank for its involvement in the Libor scandal.

The authors of the Ince law firm memo include my good friends Nilam Sharma and Aruno Rajaratnam, and their colleague Victoria Gregory.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The growing problem of M&A-related litigation has been well-documented on this site (refer for example here). The prevalence of M&A litigation has grown to the point that virtually every M&A transaction involves litigation, and often involving multiple lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions. These growing problems have been well-documented (refer for example here and here), but coming up with solutions has proven challenging.

An October 2012 paper by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform entitled “The Trial Lawyers’ New Merger Tax” (here) takes a comprehensive look at M&A litigation and proposes a number of possible legislative solutions to the problems associated with multi-jurisdiction litigation. The paper is being released in conjunction with the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform’s annual Legal Reform Summit, being held on October 24, 2012 at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. D.C.

The paper opens with a description of the current state of M&A-related litigation. The paper certainly does not hold back in characterizing the state of M&A litigation. Among other things, the paper describes M&A litigation as “extortion through litigation” that permits trial lawyers to “hold transactions hostage until they collect a ‘litigation tax’ draining a share of the merger’s economic benefit away from shareholders and into the lawyers’ own pockets.”

The paper includes a detailed review of recent statistical studies documenting the M&A related litigation trends, noting in particular (and citing the Cornerstone Research’s analysis of M&A litigation, about which refer here) that on average each transaction is subject to five lawsuits, and that many deals attract more than 15 suits. In some cases, merger deals have attracted as many as 25 lawsuits.

The paper also notes that increasingly these multiple lawsuits are filed in multiple jurisdictions, which forces defendants “to litigate in numerous jurisdictions that are incapable of coordinating with each other, particularly state courts in different states,” which “dramatically increases the cost of defense and increases the settlement pressure regardless of the merits of the underlying claims.” Because “no   procedure exists to consolidate identical cases filed in the courts of different states and in federal court,” judges today “cannot stop the abuse.”

Although there are many aspects of the M&A litigation problem, the paper focuses its proposed solutions on the multiple jurisdiction litigation issue, in part because it is “a principal source of the trial lawyers’ settlement leverage.” The paper suggests several possible legislative reforms to “prevent plaintiffs’ lawyers from exploiting” the burdens imposed by multiple jurisdiction litigation by “eliminating forum shopping and forum multiplication.”

In order to address these issues, the paper suggests three possible legislative reforms (not necessarily mutually exclusive) at the federal level. First, the paper suggests that Congress could “enact a statute requiring all merger-related litigation to be brought in the state of incorporation of the defendant company.” (The paper notes that this proposal has also been advanced by committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.) Second, the paper suggests that Congress could amend the “carve outs” in SLUSA and CAPA to required that class actions brought under the carve-outs “may be filed only in the courts of the defendant company’s state of incorporation.”

Third, to address the fact that many of these merger related lawsuits are brought in federal court, the paper suggests that Congress could enact legislation providing that any lawsuits relating to mergers or acquisitions that are brought in federal court should be transferred immediately to a federal court for the district containing the state capital.

The paper also notes that there is also possibility for legislative reform at the state level, but state legislative reform could be cumbersome and could take time because to be effective it would require enactment by a significant number of states. The paper does note that the M&A litigation problem could be addressed if states enacted legislation specifying the merger objection litigation must be brought in the state of incorporation.

The paper contains a number of possible solutions to the multiple jurisdiction litigation problem which are worthy of further discussion and consideration. There is no doubt that the multiple jurisdiction litigation does nothing to benefit shareholders and in fact accomplishes only the multiplication of legal costs and burdens, and therefore there is no doubt that active steps should be taken in order to try to eliminate this problem.

As important as it is to address the multiple jurisdiction litigation problem, however, it is worth noting that even if the multiple jurisdiction litigation problem is addressed that will not address all of the concerns with M&A litigation. As the paper itself notes about the legislative reforms proposed, “although these reforms will not entirely eliminate the problem of abuse, they will stop the multiplication of litigation and forum shopping and … and enable companies to fight back against unjustified claims” which, the paper concludes, would make it “more difficult for trial lawyers to collect the litigation tax.”

It is probably also worth noting that though the paper’s proposal regarding M&A litigation filed in federal court could reduce the problems when separate M&A-related suits are filed not just in state court but also in federal court, the proposal would not eliminate the problem. Even the transfer scheme that the paper contemplates for the suits filed in federal court would still allow for the possibility of parallel suits proceeding simultaneously in state and federal court. While it would be hoped that the courts would coordinate their actions in order to try to eliminate duplicative litigation burdens and expense, there is nothing about the federal court transfer proposal that would assure that the duplicative litigation would not go forward. 

I do think it is interesting that all of the proposals suggested are focused on reforming litigation procedures. The paper does not mention another reform M&A litigation reform proposal that at least for a time had a certain amount of cachet – that was the notion of incorporating a forum selection clause in the company’s charter documents in order to require certain types of shareholder suits to be brought in the courts of the company’s state of incorporation. This idea certainly has its advocates; however, as discussed here, companies that adopted these forum selection by laws found themselves targeted in a wave of shareholder suits challenging the by-laws. It appears that with the litigation and controversy, the forum selection by-law idea may not enjoy the same currency that perhaps it once did.

I will say that by addressing the multiple jurisdiction problem rather than trying to come up with a broader proposal attempting to eliminate abusive M&A-related litigation altogether, the paper has chosen a target about which it will easier to reach a consensus on the need for reform and that can be addressed at least in part with some identifiable legislative actions. The reform proposed in the paper is achievable and could help to reduce a serious problem facing corporate America. It is not necessary to agree with all of the paper’s rhetoric in order to agree with the proposed legislative reforms. The proposals suggested in the paper are serious and merit further discussion and consideration and I hope that Congress will take up these issues – at least once they have addressed the looming “fiscal cliff.”

Towers Watson Launches 2012 D&O Liability Insurance Survey: Towers Watson is once again taking up its annual D&O Liability Insurance Survey. This survey has a long and venerable tradition in the D&O insurance industry. The Survey went off-line briefly for a few years, but now it is back. The annual survey report, which Towers Watson makes freely available, is a valuable resource for everyone in the D&O insurance industry.

Because the survey results are so valuable for everyone in the industry, everyone participant has a stake in seeing that the survey is as representative as possible of the overall D&O industry. The survey is only as good as the data that results from the survey participants, and the more participants there are the better will be the survey results. So everyone has a stake in seeing that as many D&O insurance buyers as possible complete the survey.

The 2012 Towers Watson D&O Liability Insurance Survey can be found here. I hope that every D&O Diary reader will forward the survey link to their clients and encourage them to complete the survey. Again, the more companies the complete the survey the better the form will be. So please take the time to forward the survey to your client companies and encourage them to complete the survey form. Please note that the survey must be completed by November 30, 2012.

A summary regarding the 2011 Towers Watson D&O Liability Survey can be found here.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Much has been written recently (including on this blog) about the growing prevalence of M&A related litigation. These lawsuits, typically launched by the target company shareholders, are filed shortly after a merger announcement and usually object to some aspect of the proposed merger or of the merger-related disclosure. But the merger objection lawsuit is not the only kind of lawsuit that mergers can produce – there is also the kind of lawsuit that can arise post-merger when, it is alleged, the merger was not successful.

In a recent example of this second kind of merger lawsuit, on May 2, 2012, plaintiffs filed a shareholder class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois against Allscripts Healthcare Solutions and two of its officers. Allscripts is, according to the complaint, the “corporate result” of the merger of Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions and Eclipsys Corporation, which was announced on June 9, 2010.

The complaint references the company’s April 26, 2012 filing on Form 8-K (here), in which the company “shocked the market” by reporting earnings sharply lower than guidance, as well as the termination of the Chairman of the company’s board of directors; the resignations of three other directors; and the resignation of the company’s CFO. According to the 8-K, the termination and resignations followed board discussions regarding the leadership of the company. The complaint alleges that in reaction to the news the company’s share price dropped sharply.

According to plaintiff’s counsel’s May 2, 2012 press release (here), the complaint alleges that during the class period:

Allscripts concealed that: (a) the process of developing a unified product offering after the Merger had suffered debilitating setbacks, including major undisclosed schisms among the most senior levels of the Company, which ultimately resulted in the loss of key personnel and harmful upheaval in Company leadership; (b) a material portion of Allscripts' revenue and net income was predicated on the successful integration of these systems, and substantial business relationships had been destroyed by the Company's inability to make material progress in this area; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, Allscripts lacked a reasonable basis for its claims of progress in post-Merger integration, sound operations, profitable results, and continued growth.

This latest lawsuit exemplifies the second type of merger-related lawsuit, typically filed post-merger and typically alleging that the merger did not live up to expectations. Perhaps the highest profile example of this type of lawsuit is the litigation filed in July 2002 in the wake of the failed AOL Time Warner merger. That litigation ultimately resulted in a settlement of $2.5 billion (not to mention extensive additional opt-out settlements), which is the seventh largest securities class action lawsuit settlement of all time.  

Another high-profile case of this same type is the lawsuit that was filed in 2000 following the December 1998 merger transaction that led to the formation of Daimler Chrysler. That case ultimately settled for $300 million.

Nor are high-profile mergers the only types of transactions that can produce this type of merger-related litigation. For example, in September 2011, shareholders filed a securities class action in the Northern District of California against Equinix and certain of its directors and officers, in which the plaintiffs disclosed that the company was having difficult with the integration of Switch & Data Facilities Company, which Equinix had acquired in April 2010. (To be sure, in March 2012, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, albeit with leave to amend.)  

My point here is that the merger objection cases are not the only type of litigation that mergers and acquisitions activity can generate. As these examples show, there is also the possibility that to the extent the merger does not live up to expectations (or rather – allegedly does not live up to expectations) there could be post-merger litigation as well. These post-merger suits may either allege (as was the case in the Daimler Chrysler litigation) that the merger related documents contained misrepresentations, or that the company made misrepresentations regarding its post-merger operations or merger-related integration (as was the case in the Equinix case and in the recently filed Allscropts case). At some level it is hardly surprising that litigation might arise post-merger from time to time, given that – depending on who you ask – “mergers have a failure rate of anywhere between 50 and 85 percent.”

Indeed the possibility of a lawsuit alleging that the merger did not live up to expectations is itself not the only type of post-merger litigation that can arise. Another variant that can sometimes arise is the post-merger lawsuit alleging that the surviving company failed to properly account for the transaction or to properly present the financials of the combined companies. An example of this latter type is the July 2011 lawsuit filed against JBI, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers, in which the plaintiff alleged that the company did not properly account for certain media credits it had acquired in connection with an acquisition transaction.

All of which serves to underscore a point which has long been known to D&O underwriters – that is, the mergers and acquisitions transactions provide context out of which litigation sometimes (perhaps frequently) arises. The recent rise in merger objection litigation has certainly amplified this point. But as the examples in this blog post demonstrate, there are other types of lawsuits beyond the merger objection cases that can arise in connection with or following a merger transaction.

Are We There Yet?: One of the huge by-products of the July 2010 enactment of The Dodd-Frank Act is the huge rulemaking burden that the Act imposed on a variety of federal agencies. As I have noted in a prior post (here), the agencies have been laboring under the rulemaking burdens, and in many cases have fallen far beyond their rulemaking deadlines the Act required.

Although there obviously is no joy in the exercise, the Davis Polk law firm has been diligently tracking the agencies’ rulemaking progress. In its May 2012 Dodd-Frank Progress Report (here) the law firm details the current status of the agencies’ rulemaking efforts.

Among other things, the study shows that as of May 1, 2012, a total of 221 Dodd-Frank rulemaking requirement deadlines have passed. Of those 221, 148 (67%) have been missed and 73 (33%) have been met with finalized rules. Regulators have not yet released proposals for 21 of the 148 missed deadlines.

Of the total of 398 rulemakings that Dodd-Frank required, 108 (27.1%) have been met with finalized rules and 146 rules have been proposed that would meet the requirement  (36.7% more). Rules have not been proposed to meet 144 (36.2%) rulemaking requirements.

The Dodd-Frank Act’s rulemaking juggernaut grinds onward. Your government at work. At the direction of Congress.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 25, 2012, Cornerstone Research released a report written by Stanford Business School Professor Robert Daines and Cornerstone Research Principal Olga Koumrian entitled “Recent Developments in Shareholder Litigation Involving Mergers and Acquisitions – March 2012 Update” (here). This memorandum is the latest in a series of recent papers documenting the growth in merger related litigation in the United States. The research described in this paper is consistent with the prior reports but it also contains some new additional insights.

The report opens with a number of observations about the incidence of litigation in connection with mergers valued at $500 or greater during the period 2007 to 2001. The report shows that while in 2007 only about 53% of such deals attracted litigation, by 2011 almost all deals (96%) of those deals attracted litigation.

In addition, with respect to the deals of that size that attracted litigation during that period, the number of lawsuit per deal also increased between 2007 and 2011. Thus, while in 2007, the average number of lawsuits per litigated deal was 2.8, in 2011, the average number of lawsuits per litigated deal was 6.2 million. The report also shows that these trends were not limited just to the largest deals; during 2010 and 2011, for deals valued between $100 million and $500 million, 85% of the deals attracted litigation, and the average number of lawsuits per litigated deal was 4.1.

The absolute count of lawsuits involving deals with values of $500 million or greater also nearly doubled during that period, with 289 lawsuits filed in 2007 and 502 lawsuits filed in 2011.

The authors also note that as of March 2012, 67 lawsuits have already been reported for thirteen out of seventeen deals announced during January and February 2012. 

Certain deals attracted far more than the average number of lawsuits. A table in the report shows that fifteen deals with a valuation of $100 million or greater during the period 2007-2011 attracted fifteen or more lawsuits. Interestingly, of these fifteen, twelve of these deals were announced in 2010 or 2012. The report notes that size alone does not explain which deals attracted these large numbers of suits, and that in fact several relatively small acquisitions attracted fifteen or more lawsuits.

The report also shows that deals in certain industries seem to attract the most numbers of lawsuits. Thus, deals in the energy industry attracted an average of 8.6 lawsuits per deal, and deals in the consumer goods industries attracted an average of 6.0 lawsuits per deal.

There is a common perception that there is a “race to file” these lawsuits after deals are announced. However, the report shows that while filings arrive quickly after deal announcements, the time to filing has not accelerated in any material way since 2007. Indeed, the proportion of lawsuits filed in the first week after the deal announcement declined from 55 percent in 2007 to 39 percent in 2011. In all years studied, “a significant percentage of lawsuits were filed more than four weeks after a deal’s announcement.”

One phenomenon that has been the subject of discussion with respect to this type of litigation is whether or not there has been a “flight from Delaware” as claimants seek to pursue claims in the courts of other states. This study shows that with respect to merger litigation involving Delaware corporations, the share of M&A lawsuits filed in Delaware was higher in 2011 (45%) than in 2007 (34%) and that the percentage has increased steadily since 2008. However, according to the report, the “most striking trend in venue choice” is that challenges to the same deal in both Delaware and some other venue (as opposed to just Delaware alone or to some other venue alone) are now more common than in 2007. Most lawsuits brought in non-Delaware courts were filed in California, Texas and New York, “likely reflecting where many deal targets are headquartered.”

The report shows that M&A shareholder lawsuits “typically settle and often settle quickly.” Of the 2010 and 2011 lawsuits where the authors were able to track the resolution, 28 percent were voluntarily dismissed, four percent were dismissed by the court, and 67 percent settled. This represents a “significant change in outcomes observed a decade ago.” A prior study cited in the report shows that in 1999 and 200, 59 percent of cases were dismissed and only 28 percent settled. Of the 202 unique settlements involving 2010 and 2011 deals, 194 were reached before the merger closed. The median time between lawsuit filing and settlement was forty-four days.

Settlement terms have also changed over time. Whereas during 1999 and 2000, the majority of settlements (52%) involved cash awards and only 10% involved additional disclosures only, only 5% of 2010 and 2011 lawsuits related to M&A deals involved cash payments, and a large majority (83%) involved additional disclosure only settlements.

The average fee awards in connection with the M&A suits in 2010 and 2011 in connection with deals valued at $500 million or greater was $1.2 million. However, this average was pulled upward by some larger awards. Only 23% of plaintiff fee awards were $1 million or higher, while 44 percent were at or under $500,000 or under. Of the largest plaintiffs few awards, several were associated with settlements that did not involve any payment to shareholders. Average fees per deal fluctuated between 2007 and 2011, and while the average fees as a percentage of deal value in 2010 and 2011 remained higher that in 2007, the average fees as a percentage of deal value declined in 2010 and 2011 compared to 2009.

Discussion

The analysis in the Cornerstone Research report corroborates many of the observations noted in prior analyses of these same topics. That is, M&A related litigation is becoming increasingly more prevalent, and each deal is attracting an increasing number of lawsuits. At a minimum, the Cornerstone Report helps explain why M&A related litigation has become increasingly more expensive to defend. The impact of M&A litigation settlements and of plaintiffs’ fee awards on the cost of this litigation is less clear, but overall the implication is that the growing frequency of this type of litigation remains a very significant corporate and securities litigation trend, with important implications for D&O insurers.

One very important consideration to be kept in mind when comparing the various reports regarding M&A litigation is that each of the reports has used its own deal size definition to define the merger transactions that are the basis of each report’s analysis. The definitions used in the various reports are not necessarily consistent. At a minimum, the differences in the definitions used can make comparisons between the reports challenging. In any event, it is important in considering the analysis in any one of the reports to keep clearly in mind what definitions the report has used in determining what merger transactions to include the study.

The FDIC’s Latest Failed Bank Lawsuit: On April 20, 2012, the FDIC filed its latest failed bank lawsuits against ten former directors and officers of the failed First Bank of Beverly Hills. In its complaint (here), which the FDIC filed in its capacity as receiver for the failed bank, the FDIC seeks to recover losses of at least $100.6 million the bank allegedly suffered on nine poorly underwritten acquisition, development and construction loans and commercial real estate loans from March 2006 through July 2007.

The bank failed on April 24, 2009, or just short of three years prior to the date the FDIC filed its lawsuit. The complaint asserts claims against the ten defendants for negligence, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint alleges that the defendants approved or allowed the loans in question in willful disregard of the bank’s own loan policies and with “willful blindness” to the risks and imprudence of the loan decisions. The complaint alleges that at the same time the defendants were approving these risky strategies, they were “weakening the Bank’s capital position by approving large quarterly dividend payments to the Bank’s parent company,” of which several defendants were shareholders. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants “lined their own pockets” with these dividends.

The FDIC’s lawsuit against the former directors and officers of the First Bank of Beverly Hills is the 29^th the FDIC has filed as part of the current wave of failed bank litigation, and the fifth so far involving a failed California bank. In its latest website update, the FDIC announced that as of April 25, 2012, the agency has authorized lawsuits in connection with 58 failed institutions against 493 individuals for D&O liability, inclusive of the 29 filed D&O lawsuits naming 239 former directors and officers. Given the large number of failed banks like the First Bank of Beverly Hills approaching the third anniversary of their closure, it seems likely that we will be seeing a flurry of new FDIC failed bank lawsuits in the months ahead.

In the meanwhile, the FDIC continues to take control of additional failed banks. This past Friday evening, the FDIC closed five additional banks, the most the FDIC has closed in a single day this year. These additional closures bring the 2012 year to date number of bank closures to 22. This flurry of bank closures is a little bit surprising as up to this point, the pace of closures had begun to suggest that the FDIC was winding down its new bank closures. The five closures on Friday night suggest that there may still be a number of bank failures yet to come.

For Almost As Long As Our Country Has Existed, Man Has Dreamed of Traveling to Cleveland: NASA announces its plan to put a man on a bus to Cleveland. Get the details here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In their paper “A Great Game: The Dynamics of State Competition and Litigation” (here), Ohio State Law Professor Steven Davidoff and Notre Dame Finance Professor Matthew Cain analyzed the M&A related litigation during the period 2005 to 2010. I discussed this article in a prior post, here. In a newly released February 2, 2012 paper entitled “Takeover Litigation in 2011” (here), Professors Davidoff and Cain supplement their prior research with the preliminary statistics for takeover litigation in 2011.

The authors review all 2011 transactions involving U.S. exchange traded companies with a deal size over $100 million, an offer price of at least $5 per share, with a publicly available merger agreement and a closing date by January 12, 2012. There were 103 transactions that met these criteria, which represents a slight decline from the 124 transactions in 2010. However, the 2011 figures do not include pending transactions from 2011, so these figures could change as more of the deals are completed.

But while the absolute number of transactions declined slightly in 2011, the number of transactions that attracted lawsuits increased, at least as a percentage matter. The authors found that while 84.6% of mergers attracted litigation in 2010, the percentage rose to 94.2% in 2011. The authors noted  in their original paper that in 2005 only 38.7% of deals attracted litigation, so the litigation is now brought “at a rate almost 2.5 times that of 2005. The authors expect that as the pending 2011 deals are completed “we expect that the ultimate 2011 litigation rate will match or exceed the 94.2% figure.”

In addition, the mean number of complaints per deal remained basically constant in 2011, to with a 2011 per deal mean of 4.8, from 4.7 in 2010. These mean figures represent a doubling of the 2005 mean number of lawsuits of 2.2. The percentage of deals that attracted multistate litigation declined slightly to 47.4% in 2011, from 47.6% in 2010.

Disclosure only settlements increase to 84% of all 2011 settlements, compared to approximately 80 percent in 2010.

The authors note that “so far for 2011 average attorneys’ fee awards are down substantially.” The mean plaintiffs’ attorneys fees awarded in all settlements declined in 2011 to $784,000, from $1.255 million in 2010. The mean attorneys’ fee award was smaller in disclosure only settlements, with the 2011 mean disclosure only attorneys fee award of $530,000, down from$710,000 in 2010. The mean fee award for settlements that involved other consideration declined to $1.952 million in 2011, down from $3.284. However the decline in median fee awards for both disclosure settlements and other settlements was much slighter than the decline in the mean. The median 2011 disclosure only settlement fee award was $450,000, compared to $546,000 in 2010, and the median fee award in 2011 for settlements involving other consideration was $1.1 million, compared to $1.25 million in 2010.

Delaware drew a much larger share of M&A-related litigation in 2011. The state attracted 64.3% of all lawsuits involving target companies incorporated in Delaware or with their headquarters in Delaware, compared to 44.1% in 2010. The 2011 rate was “the highest rate in the seven years we have tracked these figures.”

Delaware also seems to be dismissing fewer cases, “thus allowing more cases to be settled.” 85.7% of Delaware cases settled in 2011, compared to 79% of 2010 cases. The authors note that this finding is consistent with the analysis in their earlier paper, noting that “when Delaware loses cases to other jurisdictions it historically has dismissed fewer cases and allowed more to settle, consistent with conduct designed to reattract litigation.”

Consistent with the overall 2011 attorneys’ fee award trends, Delaware awarded lower average fee awards in 2011. The mean 2011 Delaware fee award was $1.051 million, compared to $2.052 in 2010. Delaware did continue to award higher attorneys’ fees than other jurisdictions, as Delaware’s 2011 average of $1.051 million was substantially above the overall 2011 average of $784,000.  

The authors emphasize however that all of the 2011 statistics are preliminary “should be read with caution” particularly given the delay in the availability of some information (particularly with respect to attorneys’ fees). The authors expect to update their information as the year progresses.

Special thanks to Professor Davidoff for providing me with a copy of his latest paper.

A D&O Primer: Readers interesting in a good, basic overview of the D&O insurance policy will want to take a look at the recently published paper “D&O Insurance: A Primer” by Lawrence Trautman and our good friend  Kara Altenbaumer-Price. Their paper can be found here

2011 Securities Litigation Overview: The Haynes & Boone law firm has a February 3, 2012 memo entitled “Securities Litigation Year in Review 2011” (here) which has a detailed overview of 2011 securities litigation developments. The memo has several very interesting sections including a section on extraterritorial litigation; a section on litigation involving auditors; and a section on litigation involving rating agencies.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

During last week’s PLUS D&O Symposium, several of the panels discussed the problems surrounding the current onslaught of M&A-related litigation – and appropriately so, as the surging levels of M&A litigation is one of the most distinct and troubling current litigation trends. During the course of the discussion at the conference, several of the speakers referenced developments, materials and statistics. I thought it might be useful to assemble these various references in one site. (I have linked to some of these resources in prior posts on this site.)

First, though, by way of background about M&A-related litigation developments, I thought it might be useful to reference and to link to a recent paper that provides a good introductory explanation of what the M&A-related litigation is all about. In a February 6, 2012 paper entitled “Anatomy of a Merger Litigation” (here), Douglas Clark of the Wilson Sonsini law firm and Marcia Kramer Mayer of NERA Economic Consulting walk through the litigation developments surrounding a single merger transaction, by way of illustration and as a vehicle to discuss and consider a variety of aggregate statistics regarding merger litigation. The paper provides a useful starting point for understanding the current M&A-related litigation phenomenon. NERA's related statistical analysis of M&A litigation can be found here.

With respect to the conference panels, I am sure that many attendees were as struck as I was by the statement of Stanford Law School Professor Michael Klausner that if you take state court M&A-related litigation into account, then corporate and securities litigation filings are at “an all-time high.” I have in fact made the same point myself, but it just has so much more credibility coming from Professor Klausner. In making these statements, Professor Klausner was referring (with respect to the state court M&A litigation) to the recent Cornerstone Research paper entitled “Recent Developments in Shareholder Litigation Involving Mergers and Acquisitions” (here).

In connection with the initial panel discussion of these litigation statistics, John Spiegel of the Munger Tolles law firm referred to a recent paper by Ohio State University Professor Steven Davidoff and Notre Dame University Finance Professor Matthew Cain. The January 1, 2012 paper, entitled “A Great Game: The Dynamics of State Competition and Litigation” can be found here. (I discussed Professors Davidoff and Cain’s paper in a prior post, here.)

Among the many issues discussed relating to the M&A-related litigation were the problems associated with multiple suits pending in separate jurisdictions relating to the same transaction. Among the suggestions that have been proposed as a way to avert the problems associated with multi-jurisdiction litigation and to discourage plaintiffs from forum shopping is the adoption by companies of a by-law amendment designating Delaware as the sole forum for all corporate and securities litigation. This suggestion has attracted a great deal of interest and a number of companies have adopted by-law amendments designating Delaware as the sole forum for corporate and securities litigation.

As several of the panelists mentioned during the conference, certain plaintiffs’ lawyers have now launched a litigation assault on these by-law amendments. On Monday and Tuesday this past week, the lawyers filed at least nine complaints against companies that had adopted these types of by-law amendments. Nate Raymond’s February 8, 2012 Am Law Litigation Daily article discussing the suits can be found here. Alison Frankel’s February 8, 2012 article on Thomson Reuters News & Insight about the cases can be found here. Francis Pileggi’s February 7, 2012 post about the cases on his Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation blog can be found here.

The nine companies targeted in the suits are: Chevron; Priceline.com; AutoNation; Curtiss-Wright; Danaher Corporation; Franklin Resources; Navistar International; SPX Corporation: and Superior Energy Services. An example of one of the complaints, which are substantially the same, can be found here.

The plaintiffs complain that the by-law applies to broad categories of kinds of litigation, is not limited just to derivative or class litigation, and applies to individual claims. But while the shareholders are required by the by-laws to bring their claims in Delaware, the bylaws provide no forum restrictions on the corporations themselves. The plaintiffs also complain that the bylaws seemingly require claim to be brought in Delaware even where there may not be personal jurisdiction over prospective defendants (for example, in connection with claims against individual directors and officers).

The plaintiffs in these suits seek a judicial declaration that the by-laws are invalid. The interesting attribute of the by-laws in dispute is that in each case, the by-laws were adopted by board action and not put to shareholder vote. So even if these particular board adopted by-laws are struck down, the cases may not address the question of whether a forum selection by-law that has been adopted by shareholder vote can be enforced (for example, on former shareholders, or even where there is no personal jurisdiction over prospective defendants).

It is worth noting that in the only judicial decision to date to consider a forum selection by-law, the by-law was found to be unenforceable. As discussed here (scroll down), in January 2011, Northern District of California Judge Richard Seeborg found Oracle’s forum selection by-law to be unenforceable, in part because it had not been put to shareholder vote. Because Seeborg was applying federal common law rather than Delaware law, his ruling may have only limited impact on the Delaware proceedings.

At least one member of the Delaware Chancery Court has voiced his approval at least of the concept of a forum selection by law; in the Revlon Shareholders’ Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery suggested that corporations organized under Delaware law are "free" to adopt "charter provisions selecting an exclusive forum or inter-entity disputes." In the wake of this suggestion, many lawyers began to recommend that their client companies adopt charter provisions designating the Delaware Court of Chancery as the preferred forum. The newly filed litigation may provide guidance on this important issue.

Finally, if you have not yet checked it out, the PLUS Blog has a number of video highlights from the PLUS D&O Symposium, including among other things an interview with yours truly.

Another FDIC Failed Bank Lawsuit: Another topic of discussion at the PLUS D&O Symposium was the growing wave of FDIC litigation against former directors and officers of failed banks. On Thursday, February 9, 2012, the FDIC filed its latest lawsuit in the District of Nevada, against four former officers of the failed Silver State Bank of Henderson, Nevada. The FDIC’s complaint can be found here.

The lawsuit is the 22^nd that the FDIC has brought as part of the current bank wave. Interestingly, this complaint was brought well over three years after the September 2008 failure of Silver State Bank. Informed sources advise that the parties had entered a tolling agreement. A February 10, 2012 Las Vegas Review-Journal article discussing the new suit can be found here.

A Preview of Warren Buffett’s Annual Letter to Shareholders: Berkshire Hathaway’s 2011 annual report will not be published for a few more weeks yet. But readers interested in a preview of Warren Buffet’s annual letter to Berkshire shareholders, which is the highlight of the company’s annual report, may want to take a few minutes to review an excerpt of the forthcoming letter that was published on February 9, 2012 in a blog on the CNN Money website (refer here). The basic thrust of the excerpt is that due to the impact of inflation and taxation, stocks outperform bonds and gold. The interesting excerpt is vintage Buffett.

“Investing,” Buffett writes, “is forgoing consumption now in order to have the ability to consume more at a later date.” Real risk then is not volatility, but the possibility that your investment will lose purchasing power -- that is, that you will actually only be able to consume less later. Investments denominated in currentcy, such as bonds or money market funds, though often charactized as "safe"  lose value due to the "inflation tax," not to mention actual taxes. Buffet says, "right now, bonds should come with a warning label." .

A Piano Duet: For today’s musical interlude, I feature a video of a 90-year old couple, playing an entertaining piano duet in the atrium of the Mayo Clinic. They have been married 62 years and they can still play a mean piano.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There seems to be a general consensus that the amount of M&A-related litigation is increasing. The question of how to quantify the increase has attracted quite a bit of attention lately. In a recent post, I previewed a forthcoming report from Cornerstone Research that will provide detailed statistic analysis of the M&A litigation phenomenon.

My post attracted considerable commentary, and also drew a communication from NERA Economic Consulting, which has released its own statistical analysis of M&A-related litigation, and which they shared with me.

In addition, this week I separately received from Ohio State University Law Professor Steven Davidoff a copy of the January 1, 2012 paper that he and Notre Dame Finance Professor Matthew Cain have written entitled “A Great Game: The Dynamics of State Competition and Litigation” (here), in which they analyze M&A related Litigation from 2005-2010., with particular attention to the question of whether or not there is now competition between the states for this type of corporate litigation. Davidoff should be familiar to many readers as The Deal Professor from the New York Times Dealbook blog.

These two reports add substantial additional quantitative and analytic support for the general observations surrounding the growth in M&A-related litigation. Both of these reports corroborate the explosive growth in M&A-related litigation in recent years. I examine both of these reports below, starting first with Professors Davidoff and Cain’s analysis.

Professors Davidoff and Cain’s Paper

The Professors’ primary interests relate to the question of whether or not the states are competing for corporate litigation. Their interest in this question is driven in part by recent analyses suggesting that Delaware may be losing “market share” for this type of litigation. In order to determine how “both attorneys and courts interact in this game,” the authors examine state court merger litigation. The authors analyzed 955 merger transactions that took place between 2005 and 2010 and having a transaction value great than $100 million.

The authors found that 49.7 percent of transactions during that period attracted at least one shareholder lawsuit, and that the litigation rate increased “sharply” during the period, with only 38.7 percent of the transactions incurring litigation in 2005, compared to 84.2 percent in 2010. In addition, merger transactions increasingly are attracting multiple lawsuits. In 2005, only 8.6 percent of the deals attracted litigation in more than one jurisdiction, compared to 46.5 percent in 2010.

The authors found that during the sample period, 69.8 percent of cases settled, while 30.2 percent were dismissed. Only 4.9 percent of the settlements involved in increased in the amount of the transaction consideration, while 52.1 percent of the settlements involved only the disclosure of additional information. The average plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee for settled suits is $1.4 million. Cases that settled for additional disclosure only pay the lowest level of attorneys’ fees (average attorneys' fees of $793,000) while settlements involving an increase in the deal consideration  pay the most (average attorneys fees $8.5 million)

The authors used this information to calculate an expected dismissal and attorneys’ fee baseline, as a way to measure “unexplained” dismissal rates and attorneys fees. The authors used these unexplained amounts as an “indicator for state competition.” The authors found significant variation across states, with certain states awarding higher fees than others. Delaware awarded fees $400,000 to $500,000 higher while dismissing a greater portion of cases than other states.

The authors found some statistical support for the claims that Delaware is losing the state court litigation competition, but they also found that “the game” is complex and that the dynamic varies depending on which states are compared. The authors also found evidence that Delaware’s courts are responsive to this competition, concluding that Delaware’s courts award” higher attorneys’ fees to compensate for a higher dismissal rate,” and adjust “dismissal rates down when it loses prior cases to other jurisdictions.” The authors cite the recent $300 million award in the Southern Peru Copper case as an indication that Delaware is” competing more overtly in this game.”

The NERA Economic Consulting Presentation

In a December 6, 2011 presentation done in conjunction with the Wilson Sonsini law firm and entitled “Merger Objection Litigation” (here), NERA provided a detailed statistical review of M&A-related litigation. The NERA study is based on the firm’s examination of the 731 merger transactions it identified as having been announced between 2006 and 2010 and that were completed by February 28, 2011, and that had a value equal to or greater than $100 million. NERA found that 285 of those transactions were challenged in a state or federal lawsuit, through June 20, 2011. NERA also found that litigation settlements had been reached in connection with 162 of the deals.

The NERA study found that while there were fewer deals overall in the last three years of the 2006-2010 study period, the incidence of M&A related litigation escalated significantly in those three later years. Thus, while only 26.1% of the 2006 deals and only 21.9% of the 2007 deals attracted litigation, 45.4% of the 2008 deals, 78.6% of the 2009 deals, and 60.7% of the 2010 deals attracted litigation. Though the 2010 figure represent a slight decline from the prior year, the 2010 level of litigation still represents a significant increase compared to the earlier years in the study period.

The NERA study also found that throughout the 2006-2010 period, the litigation rate increased as the size of the deal increased. Thus, only about 25% of the deals under $500 million attracted litigation, but 38.7% of the deals between $500-$999 million, 40.8% of the deals between $1 billion and $1.9 billion, 53.0% of the deals between $2 billion and $4.9 billion and 70.1% of the deals equal to or greater than $5 billion attracted litigation.

Merger objection litigation can be expected to arise fairly quickly after the deal is announced. The NERA study shows that a third of the litigation arrives in the first two days after the deal is announced and about 60% arrived in the first week. 81% of the merger litigation arrives within the first thirty days after the deal is announced. Although the takeover target is consistently named as a defendant in this litigation, 70% of the time the named defendants also include the acquirer.

The vast majority of the litigation is filed in state court only. 83% of the deals that were litigated attracted only state court litigation. Another 14% attracted both state and federal litigation. Only three percent of the deals attracted only federal court litigation.

The NERA study suggests that many of the deals that attract litigation are attracting litigation outside Delaware. Of the deals that were litigated, 20% were litigated only in Delaware and another 13% were litigated in both Delaware and another state. So about one third of the deals that attracted litigation were litigated at least in part in Delaware. The remaining two thirds of the deals were litigated only outside Delaware. However, the presentation does not show how many of the deals that were litigated only outside Delaware involved target companies that were incorporated in Delaware. The presentation also does not show whether or not the prevalence of litigation outside Delaware changed during the 2006-2010 study period.

With respect to the M&A-related lawsuits in the study period that had settled, the NERA report found that the vast majority of the settlements involved cash payments of less than $1 million. 106 of the 154 settlements in the settlement analysis (nearly 69%) settled for less than $1 million. Another 33 out of the 154 in the settlement analysis settled for less than $10 million. Only 15 of the 154 settlements in the analysis settled for amounts of $10 million or greater, including only 4 with settlements between $100 million and only one with a settlement greater than $1 billion. (The NERA presentation includes a detailed list of the largest settlements at slide 19.)

Thus, while the settlement period included a few very large settlements, the vast majority of the settlements were for less than $10 million, and more than two-thirds were below $1 million.

In fully 87% of the litigated deals that had settled, the only beneficiary from the monetary settlement was the plaintiffs’ attorneys. In only 9% of the settlements did the beneficiaries include both the plaintiffs’ attorneys and class members. Thus the vast majority of monetary settlements pay only for the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expense, and the “benefits” to the class, although occasionally monetary, more often take another form, such as reduced target company termination fee; fuller disclosure; or improved corporate governance.

Discussion

The information in these two studies provides valuable additional perspective on the increasingly important M&A-related litigation phenomenon. The two studies corroborate that in creasing numbers of M&A transactions are attracting litigation. The NERA data also provides some interesting additional information that has not been a part of other statistical perspectives on this litigation phenomenon, including in particular the data showing how quickly the lawsuits arrive and the information showing the range of settlement outcomes.

The Professors’ report provides additional information about the increasing prevalence of multi-jurisdiction litigation, as well as average attorneys’ fees and dismissal rates. Perhaps most significantly, the Professors’ study provides important insight into the question of state competition for corporate litigation.

The data in these studies are directionally consistent with the previously released studies, including the information I previewed in a recent post about the forthcoming Cornerstone Research report. They are also directionally consistent with each other, while differing somewhat in their details. The two reports also differ somewhat from the Cornerstone Research data I previously reviewed.  (The Cornerstone Research analysis suggests a higher litigation rate both in 2007 and in 2010 than the analysis in either of the two studies discussed above, although all three of the analyses agree that that the litigation rate increased between 2007 and 2010.)

The difference between the analyses may be attributable to the differing data sources used in the studies. There may have been methodological differences as well. For those of use who are studying and trying to understand the growing M&A-related litigation phenomenon, it will be important to understand these differences. We can certainly hope as the various research sources release their analyses that they will help the rest of us understand not only where their data came from and how it was analyzed, but how the approach they used may differ from other analyses that have been published.

In any event, no matter how you slice it, the level of M&A related litigation is growing. The defense expenses and settlement amounts associated with this litigation represent a growing problem as well. All signs are that this phenomenon will remain a significant part of the corporate and securities litigation landscape for the foreseeable future. For that reason it will remain important to understand what this litigation means. The willingness of NERA and of the Professors to share their analysis is extraordinarily helpful in that regard. Along those lines, I would like to express my deep thanks here to NERA and to Professor Davidoff for their willingness to share their presentations with me.

Seven Nation Army: Even though I was not even really focusing on it, I had noticed recently that marching bands and sporting fans everywhere have picked up the same tune, as a rallying cry, as a communal chant, as basic crowd background noise. But if you had asked me to focus on it, I still might not have been able to name the tune. A January 13, 2011 article on Deadspin identified the tune, and also explained how it managed to take over the sportworld.

The song is “Seven Nation Army,” a 2003 tune from the alternative rock band, The White Stripes. Just in case you don’t think you know the tune, I have included a video below of the band performing the song. (I guarantee you if you listen to it, you will say – “Oh yeah, that song. I always wondered what that was.”) I was on the alert for it this past weekend, and I noticed that both the San Francisco crowd at the 49ers/Saints game and the west London crowd at the English Premier League game between Chelsea and Sunderland were chanting the tune during their respective games on Saturday. All very odd for an alternative rock song. But I guess it isn’t any weirder than that fact that a lot of marching banks have also picked up “Carmina Burana” from classical composer Carl Orff.

In any event, for today’s musical interlude, here’s The White Stripes performing “Seven Nation Army.” Now you will know what the heck all of those fans are trying to chant. (My apologies to all of those rock music aficionados – most half my age -- who think I am an idiot for not knowing the song before; please consider my age, location and occupation, and I think you will see how unlikely it is that I would be fully versed in the contemporary alternative rock scene.)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In several recent posts (most recently here), I have written about the problems associated with the growing wave of M&A related litigation. In writing about this topic, I have tried to marshal the evidence supporting my position, but for many reasons my analysis has been more descriptive than statistical. However, I have been provided with advance access to some of the data from a forthcoming Cornerstone Research publication to be entitled “Recent Developments in Shareholder Litigation Involving Mergers and Acquisitions.” The data provide interesting additional statistical perspective on the recent M&A-related litigation trends.

UPDATE (as of Jan. 17, 2012): Cornerstone has now released its report, entitled "Recent Develpments in Shareholder Litigation Involving Merger and Acquisitions" (here) online. The full report iincludes additional information beyond what is discussed in this blog post.

In their preparation of the report, Cornerstone Research reviewed SEC filings related to acquisitions of U.S. public companies valued at $100 million or greater and announced during 2010 and 2011. For purposes of historical comparison, Cornerstone Research also collected information on litigation related to deals announced in 2007 valued at $500 million or greater.

Based on their review, Cornerstone Research identified 789 lawsuits filed in connection with U.S. public company acquisition transactions valued at $100 million or greater and announced in 2010 and 696 lawsuits for deals of that size announced in 2011.

Cornerstone Research found that litigation arose in connection with 91% of all deals announced during the 2010-2011 period with values greater than $100 million. The average number of lawsuits per deal announced during that period was 5.1. Both of these figures grow relatively larger as the size of the deals grows larger. Thus for deals announced in 2010-2011 with valuations between $100 million to $500 million percentage of deals involving litigation is 85%, and the average number of lawsuits per deal is 4.1, while 96% of all deals valued over $1 billion during that period attracted litigation, and averaged 6.1 lawsuits per deal.

Certain deals announced during the 2010-2011 proved to be particularly litigation attractive. For example, Blackstone’s $600 million acquisition of Dynegy attracted 29 lawsuits. Express Scripts’ $29.3 billion acquisition of Medco Health Solutions attracted 22 lawsuits. Attachmate’s $2.2 billion acquisition of Novell attracted 19 lawsuits. Overall, there were nine deals during that period valued at $100 million or greater that attracted 15 or more lawsuits.

To provide historical perspective, Cornerstone Research compared M&A litigation in 2007 and in the 2010-2011 periods, by comparing deals valued greater than $500 million announced in each of those two periods. There were 289 lawsuits in connection involving deals of that size in 2007 and 557 involving deals of that size in 2010, representing a 92% growth in the absolute number of lawsuits between the two periods. There were 473 lawsuits involving deals of that size that were announced in 2011, which is 63% higher than in connection with deals of that size announced in 2007.

Obviously, this growth in the absolute number of lawsuits might be attributable to an increase in the level of M&A activity involving deals greater than $500 million. In fact, there were 195 deals valued over $500 million that were announced in 2007, but only 108 and 80 deals valued over $500 million that were announced in 2010 and 2011, respectively.

The Cornerstone Research analysis shows that only 50% of the deals valued at $500 million or greater announced in 2007 attracted litigation, whereas 95% of the comparably sized deals announced in 2010 attracted litigation, and 96% of such deals announced in 2011 attracted litigation. In other words, the litigation activity was both absolutely and relatively greater for deals valued at $500 million or greater in the 2010-2011 period compared with comparably sized deals announced in 2007.

In addition, the number of lawsuits filed per deal has also increased. Deals valued at greater than $500 million announced in 2007 attracted an average of 2.8 lawsuits, whereas deals of that size announced in 2010 attracted an average of 5.4 lawsuits, and deals of that size announced during 2011 attracted an average of 6.1 lawsuits.

One of the recurring questions associated with the increase in M&A-related litigation has been whether or not courts in Delaware, traditionally the forum of choice for this type of litigation, has been losing “market share” to other jurisdictions that may be perceived as more plaintiff-friendly. The Cornerstone Research analysis suggests that Delaware’s courts are not in fact losing market share, at least with respect to deals meeting Cornerstone’s criteria.

Cornerstone Research’s analysis of this issue compares deals involving Delaware incorporated companies that were valued at greater than $500 million announced in 2007, on the one hand,  to deals involving Delaware incorporated companies where the deal was valued at greater than $500 million and announced in 2010-2011, on the other hand.

The Cornerstone Research analysis shows that in terms of where the lawsuits were filed in the two respective periods, in 2007, 34% of the lawsuits were filed in Delaware, while in the 2010-2011 period, 41% of the lawsuits were filed in Delaware.

This analysis is reinforced when the lawsuits are looked at on a per deal basis. Looking at the venue of lawsuits in which acquisitions involving Delaware incorporated companies were being challenged, the Cornerstone data show that 29 of the 2007 deals involved at least one lawsuit filed in Delaware, and 32 of the deals involving only litigation outside Delaware. By comparison, in 2011, 41 of the deals had at least one lawsuit filed in Delaware, and just nine of the deals involved litigation only outside Delaware. In other words, in the later period, a much greater portion of the deals involved litigation in Delaware, either exclusively or in combination with litigation in other jurisdictions, and a much smaller proportion of the deals involved only litigation outside Delaware.

Discussion

The Cornerstone Research data tend to corroborate many of the points I have made in recent posts on this blog – that is, M&A litigation is increasing, on both an absolute and relative basis; that a much higher percentage of deals is attracting merger objection litigation; and the average number of lawsuits per deal is also increasing.  The Cornerstone Research analysis is particularly interesting with respect to the number of deals that are attracting unusually higher numbers of lawsuits.

The data in the Cornerstone Research report are directionally consistent with many other data sources I have cited in prior blog posts on this topic, but the Cornerstone figures appear to differ in certain specific details. For example, the Cornerstone Research analysis suggests that a much higher percentage of deals attract merger objection lawsuits than the figures in other reports have suggested (refer here, for example).

There likely are many explanations for the differences in the details between the Cornerstone Research data and other reports, but one particular aspect of the Cornerstone analysis should be kept in mind. That is, the Cornerstone Research analysis for the 2010 and 2011 period involves only M&A transactions with announced values greater than $100 million. Deals involving smaller valuations and the related litigation are not a part of the Cornerstone Research analysis. By the same token, Cornerstone Research’s historical analysis refers only to deals announced in the 2007 period with valuations greater than $500 million, which omits an even broader range of deals (and related litigation) based on the size of the deal valuations. These data set definitions could result, at a minimum, in differences between the Cornerstone Research data and other analyses of comparable time periods.

But in any event, the Cornerstone Research analysis makes a very important contribution to the consideration of these issues. The Cornerstone Research report clearly shows that M&A related litigation is becoming a more significant issue. With the increasing average numbers of lawsuits per deal, M&A-related litigation is becoming an increasingly more costly problem, as the increased numbers of lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions means both procedural complications and increased defense expense.

The Cornerstone Research analysis of the Delaware court “market share” issue could prove to be particularly interesting. The question whether or not litigants are self-selecting away from Delaware is and will be a very hot topic. The stakes are high, as the continued involvement of Delaware courts in corporate and securities litigation could determine whether or not Delaware’s courts continue to play a leading role on legal issues in these areas. And on a more practical level, if Delaware’s courts are not losing market share after all, there is no reason for its judges to be as concerned with attempting to curry favor with the plaintiffs’ bar in order to preserve market share.

The Cornerstone Research data certainly offers a variety of interesting statistical perspectives on the issues surrounding the growth of M&A litigation. We can all look forward to the forthcoming publication of Cornerstone Research’s complete report on these issues.

Very special thanks to Cornerstone Research for their willingness to share this data with me and with readers of this blog.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

One of the most noteworthy recent trends in corporate and securities litigation has been the dramatic growth in the frequency of lawsuits relating to mergers and acquisitions activity. These lawsuits are not only becoming increasingly more common, but also increasingly more costly. The growth in this litigation activity has been so rapid that the significance of these trends may remain underappreciated.

In this post, I first set the stage to examine these trends by reviewing the current landscape for traditional securities class action litigation, which differs in many ways from current conventional wisdom, and which provides a context for assessing the merger-related litigation trends. I then review important recent developments in M&A related litigation activity, both in terms of increasing frequency and escalating severity. I conclude with a review of the implications of these developments.

The Current Securities Class Action Litigation Environment

Traditionally, any discussion of corporate and securities litigation focused primarily (and sometimes exclusively) on securities class action litigation. In many ways, this makes perfect sense, as these kinds of lawsuits were for many years the most frequent and the most severe type of corporate and securities lawsuit.

More recently, the relative significance of securities class action litigation as a percentage of all corporate and securities litigation risks has shifted. As the insurance information firm Advisen has well-documented (refer here), securities class action litigation activity as a percentage of all corporate and securities litigation has declined dramatically over the past several years. Whereas securities class action lawsuits once represented among the most likely sources of litigation, in 2010 securities class action lawsuits represented less than 16% of all corporate and securities lawsuit filings.

As Advisen has also documented and as is discussed below, one reason for this relative decline is the growth in M&A-related litigation filings. Moreover, as is also discussed below, securities class action litigation is not the only source of corporate and securities litigation severity exposure; M&A-related lawsuits also represent a growing severity risk.

But, to set the stage for the discussion of M&A-related litigation trends and their significance, there are some important misperceptions about traditional securities class action litigation activity that I want to address.

A frequently recurring question is whether overall securities class action litigation filings are declining. Usually this discussion focuses exclusively on the absolute number of annual new securities class action lawsuit filings. In 2010, depending on the source to which you are referring, the absolute number of new lawsuit filings either declined compared to historical averages ( e.g., refer here regarding  the 2010 Cornerstone Research study) or held steady or perhaps grew (refer here regarding  the 2010 NERA Economic Consulting  study). The reasons these studies reach different conclusions are worthy topics for a separate blog post. But regardless of the conclusions about the absolute numbers of annual lawsuit filings, the key fact often  missing from the analysis is a consideration of how the absolute number of filings relates to the changing number of public companies.

The fact is, since, 1999, the number of companies listed on U.S. exchanges has declined every year. If you refer to the annual data from the World Federation of Exchanges (here), you will see that the number of companies listed on U.S. exchanges has declined from over 8,500 in 1999 to about 5,100 in 2010 – a decline of about 40%.

When the absolute number of annual lawsuits is compared to the declining number of companies trading on U.S. exchanges, it is clear that the frequency of securities class action lawsuit filings has not declined, but arguably is increasing, and at a minimum is at least holding steady.

But while frequency has not declined, median severity has increased. In 2010, the median securities class action settlement was $11.1 million, which is well over double the 1999 median settlement of $5.0 million and triple the 1996 median settlement of $3.7 million. These figures are not adjusted to account for the effect of economic inflation, but these figures nevertheless reflect a  substantial increase.

In short, even amidst the changing litigation landscape in which securities class action lawsuit filings have declined as a percentage of all corporate and securities litigation, the threat of securities class action litigation remains a very serious litigation exposure for publicly traded companies.

It is against this backdrop that the growth in M&A litigation must be considered.

The Exploding Growth in M&A-Related Litigation

Whatever else you want to say about M&A-related litigation, it is clear that there is a lot more of it now than there used to be, both in terms of absolute numbers of lawsuits filings and also relative to the number of merger transactions. Indeed, Advisen has commented that the number of M&A-related lawsuits has “skyrocketed “in recent years.

Reported data (refer for example here and here) show that as recently as ten years ago, there were only a handful of M&A related lawsuits filed each year. For example, in 2001, there were only four M&A related lawsuits filed, compared to the 341 filed in 2010 (up from “only” 191 the year prior). Just in the four- year period ending in 2010, the annual number of merger-related lawsuit filings has increased over 600%.

These numbers are even more startling when it is considered that these lawsuit filings are increasing even as the number of merger transactions is declining. The number of merger targeted companies declined in each of the three years from 2008 to 2010, yet the absolute number of merger-related lawsuits increased in each of those three years relative to the prior year. In 2010, there were 214 fewer companies targeted for mergers than there were in 2007, representing a decline of over 37%. Yet the number of merger-related lawsuits filed in 2010 was more than triple the number filed in 2007. Today, one out of every two companies announcing an acquisition is sued, and that is true whether or not the acquisition is friendly or hostile, and even whether or not the board of the target company has accepted or rejected the proposed acquisition.

There are a host of possible explanations for these filing trends. The first is that a changing case law environment has made securities class action litigation a more challenging game for plaintiffs (for example, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in the Tellabs case and the Morrison case). In addition, the declining number of public companies over the past several years means that there are fewer prospective securities class action litigation targets. These developments may have encouraged plaintiffs’ lawyers to seek out an alternative business model.

And in the M&A related litigation, the plaintiffs’ attorneys seem to have found relatively easy money, as these cases often involve a quick resolution (due to the fact that the parties are often highly motivated to complete the underlying transaction) and the payment of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, which average around $400,000 per case. These attributes of M&A related litigation were discussed in an August 27, 2011 Wall Street Journal article, written from the shareholders’ perspective, entitled “Why Merger Lawsuits Don’t Pay” (here) and in a July 12, 2011 Fox Business article entitled “M&A Lawsuits Skyrocket as Fee-Hungry Law Firms Smell Easy Money” (here).

The surest sign that M&A-related litigation represents an attractive proposition for the plaintiffs’ lawyers is the level of lawsuit competition that merger transactions increasingly are engendering. Increasingly, the announcement of a merger can trigger multiple separate lawsuits filed by separate plaintiffs’ firms in multiple separate jurisdictions, producing complicated procedural and jurisdictional issues (refer for example here and here) and also adding dramatically to the cost of litigation.

This latter point, about the costs involved, brings us to the heart of the matter. Not only are M&A cases increasingly more frequent, they are increasingly more costly, in a number of ways. I emphasize the costs involved because there is a perception in certain quarters that while M&A lawsuits may be numerous, they represent only a minor nuisance. To put this in insurance terms, M&A lawsuits are described as a high frequency, low severity risk. In fact, this is something I myself have said in the past. However, the truth now is, when all of the costs are considered on an all-in basis, that the cases actually are quite expensive, and increasingly are becoming more so.

Start with defense expenses. Because these cases often involve high stakes and short fuses, their defense often can trigger an explosion of legal fees. When you add in the additional expense involved when there are multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions, the expenses multiply. And when you add in the fact that these cases increasingly are continuing on even after the underlying merger transaction has closed, the defense costs can increase exponentially. Much of the time, these defense expenses are borne by the target company’s D&O insurer.

The D&O Insurers not only absorb the sometimes massive defense expenses, but they also often have to absorb the plaintiffs’ fees as well, as the payment of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees often is a covered component of the case settlement. (Refer here for a recent discussion of the issues surrounding D&O coverage for a plaintiffs’ fee request in a derivative lawsuit settlement.)

The plaintiffs’ fees alone can sometimes be staggering. In the August 2010 Morgan Kinder lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ fee requests amounted to as much as $50 million (that is, 25% of the $200 million settlement, refer here). The plaintiffs’ fee request in the September 2011 Del Monte settlement was $22.3 million (refer here). And in the May 2010 settlement of the Atlas Energy case, the plaintiffs’ fee request was as much as $17.25 million ($25% of the $69 million settlement, refer here).

It should be emphasized that the plaintiffs’ fee request can be substantial even where there is otherwise no cash component to the settlement. For example, in the April 2010 XTO Energy settlement, in which there otherwise was no cash component, the plaintiffs’ fee request was $8.8 million (refer here) . In the September 2009 Pepsi Bottling settlement, which otherwise did not involve a cash payment the plaintiffs’ fee request was $7.7 million (refer here). Similarly in the February 2011 Atlas Energy case, the fee request was $4.0 million (refer here).

And beyond that – and the most important point here – it is increasingly common for the settlement of these cases to also involve significant cash payments. Indeed, the settlements in many of these cases suddenly are starting to resemble in order of magnitude the settlements of securities class action lawsuits. Thus, the Kinder Morgan case, as referenced above,  settled in August 2010 for $200 million (refer here); the Del Monte case, as noted above,  settled in September 2011 for $89 million (refer here); the May 2010 ACS settlement was $69 million (refer here); and the 2011 Intermix Media settlement was $45 million (refer here). In many instances, where these settlement amounts are not designated as an increase in the acquisition price, these settlement amounts may be insurable.

And not only have these cases become more expensive in every way, there are signs that the competition between jurisdictions could even further exacerbate this situation. At November 11, 2011 Columbia Law School conference about the Delaware Chancery Court, various observers commented on the question of whether the Delaware courts, the traditional forum for this type of litigation, were losing “market share” to other jurisdictions’ courts, possibly because plaintiffs’ lawyers believe they (and their clients too, don’t forget) think they can do better elsewhere.  Francis Pileggi has a good summary of the discussion at the conference in a November 11, 2011 post on his Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation blog (here).

As Alison Frankel discussed in a November 14, 2011 post on her Thomson Reuters News and Insight blog, here, this debate compelled one Delaware jurist to conduct a visual demonstration to try to prove that plaintiffs’ lawyers can expect to recover substantial fees in Delaware courts. It is an obvious concern if Delaware’s judges feel obliged -- in order remain competitive in the jurisdictional competition and to try to preserve declining market share -- to prove that plaintiffs’ lawyers will be rewarded for resorting to the state’s courts.

Discussion

Contrary to popular perception, the new M&A litigation model represents both a high frequency and a high severity risk. The severity risk is particularly acute given the exacerbating effects of escalating defense expenses and rising plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. Increasingly, M&A litigation is a recurring and very expensive feast for which D&O insurers are picking up increasingly larger tabs.

Another important point that should not be lost here is what the increasing risk of M&A related litigation means in combination with the ongoing risk of securities class action litigation. When all of the factors are considered – including the declining number of public companies and the increasing absolute number of lawsuits – it is apparent that publicly traded companies today  face a significantly increased risk of serious corporate and securities litigation than they did in the recent past.

Indeed, the probability of a U.S.-exchange listed company facing a merger lawsuit or a securities class action lawsuit in 2010 was more than double what the equivalent probability was as recently as 2006, as the number of public companies has declined and the number of lawsuits has increased. To be specific, the probability in 2006 that any given public company would get hit with a merger lawsuit or securities class action lawsuit was 2.8%; the equivalent probability in 2010 was 5.7%.  The probability of any given company being involved in serious corporate and securities litigation has never been greater.

All of these developments mean that publicly traded companies’ litigation risks represent an increasingly  serious and expensive problem, and that M&A-related litigation is increasingly a big part of that problem – in general, of course, but also for the companies’ D&O liability insurers as well.

Now, I am not the first to make some of these points about M&A-related litigation. But I think there still is a perception that if M&A-related litigation represents a problem for the D&O insurance industry, it is principally a problem for the insurers that are active in providing primary D&O insurance (refer for example here), and that this is not a problem for the carriers that confine their public company D&O exposures to the excess layers. The point I hope the above analysis gets across is that when you take into account the defense expenses, the plaintiffs’ fees and the M&A related indemnity exposure, the M&A-related litigation increasingly represents a risk for all of the carriers in companies’ D&O insurance programs. M&A litigation increasingly involves a threat of a flame-through loss, increasingly approaching the order of magnitude of securities class action litigation.

With both increasing frequency and severity, the casual observer might well assume that pricing for D&O insurance would also be increasing. The casual observer’s assumption would, however, fail to take into account the iron laws of supply and demand. There are more D&O insurers now than there were ten years ago, representing in the aggregate much greater levels of insurance capacity, while at the same time, there are many fewer public companies. What you have are increasing numbers of D&O insurers chasing decreasing numbers of public company D&O insurance buyers.  As a result, overall industry pricing has declined steadily since 2003.

It might well be asked how long this combination of circumstances in the D&O insurance marketplace can continue. Some commentators are already proclaiming that they thing they see a market turn on the horizon. I am making no predictions. I have been in this business one way or the other for nearly three decades and I think that every single day during that period someone has been predicting a hard market. We are still waiting. All I know is that if someone were looking around for reasons to explain increasing D&O insurance pricing (if it were in fact increasing), they wouldn’t have to struggle to find explanations. However, I also know that the insurance industry rarely changes as an act of will – it usually changes only as a matter of necessity. Until necessity requires, then, the D&O insurance industry likely will continue on in the same direction – even as the dashboard indicator lights flash caution.

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

One of the most distinctive trends in corporate and securities litigation in recent years has been the rise in litigation related mergers and acquisition activity. Cornerstone Research’s most recent year-end litigation filing study, released in conjunction with the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, documented that in M&A litigation in 2010 increased at a much greater rate than did M&A activity during the year. .

One of the factors behind this accelerated litigation growth is the fact that increasingly a merger announcement triggers multiple different lawsuits, often filed in multiple jurisdictions. This proliferation of multi-jurisdiction litigation raises a host of procedural challenges, as the nominal corporate defendant is forced to litigate on multiple fronts while at the same time attempting to press ahead with the underlying transaction.

In an interesting post on The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation entitled “Improving Multi-Jurisdiction, Merger-Related Litigation” (here), Mark Lebovitch of the Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman law firm takes a look at these problems and proposes a Delaware-court based procedural solution to try to address the issues.

The article first summarizes  the problems involved when mulit-jurisdiction M&A litigation arises. Lebovith states that “the current system is prone to manipulation and gamesmanship.” The defendants face duplicative costs; the shareholders interests may be subordinated as part of procedural jockeying between competing plaintiffs (and their lawyers); and plaintiffs’ lawyers may find themselves compelled to pay a “tax” to competing counsel in order to deliver a global settlement.

Lebovitch urges the adoption of “a system that centralizes deal-related litigation into a single forum.” Specially, he suggests “the adoption of an efficient, predictable and transparent rules-based system for appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel to settle organizational issues” in M&A litigation. He is not suggesting the approach embodied in the PSLRA, where the presumptive leadership goes to the claimant with the largest financial interest. Rather, he urges a process for the selection of lead plaintiff based on “anticipated ability to achieve the best results for the class.”

In the system Lebovitch proposes, the first plaintiff to file in the Delaware Court of Chancery would be required to publish a nationwide notice of class, which would trigger a 10-day period during which any other shareholder interested pursuing the claim would have the opportunity to submit a leadership motion detailed their theory of the case, case management plan and their counsel’s experience with similar claims. The materials would be reviewed in camera and the Court would select the lead plaintiff, with emphasis on “counsel’s track record and ability to represent the class, taking into account the nature of the action, the novelty of the issues raise, and the movant’s case-management plan.”

The contention is that with a clear, detailed and predictable leadership selection process, there would be less incentive for procedural jockeying between plaintiffs.

Lebovith correctly points out that though this approach would mitigate the problems with multijurisdictional litigation, the problems would not finally be solved. The proposed leadership selection process would ameliorate jockeying for position within Delaware but it would not eliminate the problems arising when plaintiffs in another jurisdiction attempt to press forward. The parties could still have to face a multi-front war, even if the process has been improved within Delaware.

One possible way to address these remaining issues was suggested by now-former Chancellor William Chandler in his March 28, 2011 opinion in the Allion Healthcare Shareholders Litigation. The Allion Healthcare case arose out of a proposed going-private transaction. After the transaction was announced, multiple lawsuits arose in Delaware and New York. Because the various plaintiffs refused to coordinate, the cases proceeded in both jurisdictions. After the transaction closed, the parties reached a settlement agreement, but the plaintiffs were unable to agree on allocation of fees, and the matter wound up before Chancellor Chandler.

Chandler noted at the outside the “increasingly problematic” challenges associated with multi-jurisdictional litigation, commenting that it forces defendants to “litigate the same case –often identical claims – in multiple courts.” In addition, judicial resources are “wasted” and there is a danger that different courts “would apply the law differently or otherwise reach different outcomes,” leaving “the law in a confused state and pose full fait and credit problems.”

Having posed the problem, Chandler then (in footnote 12 of the opinion) identified his own “personal preferred approach,” which is for “defense counsel to file motions in both (or however many) jurisdictions …explicitly asking the judges in each jurisdiction to confer with one another and agree upon where the case should go forward.”  Of course, as Chandler notes, “judges in different jurisdictions might not always find common ground on how to move the litigation forward. “ But this approach, Chandler contends is “one (if not the most) efficient and pragmatic method to deal with this increasing problem,” adding that “it is a method that has worked for me in every instance in which it was tried.”

The approach Chandler advocated in his Allion Healthcare opinion was endorsed by Theodore Mirvis of the Wachtell  Lipton law  firm on an April 12, 2011 post on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation entitled “Delaware Court of Chancery Addresses Multi-Forum Deal Litigation” (here). Mirvis comments that Chandler’s opinion “indicates that Delaware Courts will apply their practical wisdom to combat the untenable burdens imposed by multi-forum deal litigation and remain receptive to new approaches to harmonize conflicting and duplicative merger litigation.”  

An additional comment about the Allion Healthcare opinion can be found on Peter Ladig’s April 25, 2011 post on the Delaware Business Litigation Report entitled “Multi-Jurisdictional Litigation a Rich Vein of Issues for Chancer Court” (here).

The two approaches are not mutually exclusive and they are not incompatible. Indeed, it would appear that the two approaches together would significantly advance the possibility of avoiding many of the ills associated with the multi-jurisdictional litigation. To be sure, as Chancellor Chandler noted in his Allion Healthcare opinion, the practical approach between courts might not always eliminate the possibility that identical cases could go forward in different jurisdictions. But the approach creates an opportunity to avoid the problem. And the procedural mechanism Lebovitch advocate would increase the likelihood that the proceeding in Delaware would go forward in an orderly way.

None of these procedural issues addresses the central underlying problem, which is that opportunistic plaintiffs’ lawyers have identified what seems like a sure-fire profit opportunity in creating litigation obstacles to announced transactions.  Lebovitch’s blog post explains the growth in this type of litigation as due to “the high-profile success achieved by certain members’ of the plaintiffs’ bar” which has “triggered a wave of new entrants to the field.” Moreover, “the dramatic decrease in securities class actions has further increased the number of firms willing to pursue M&A litigation.” As “more law firms enter this already crowded field” the consequence is that “the number of lawsuits stemming from each deal continues to increase.”

Reasonable minds may differ as to the value of the M&A litigation. But regardless of the theoretical value, the multiplication of costs and the imposition of increased procedural inefficiencies resulting from the escalating litigation activity represent an enormous burden on business. The concerns are all the more apparent when the increasing amounts of litigation is not the result of increased numbers of injustices crying out for redress but simply reflect increasing numbers of plaintiffs lawyers looking for a piece of the action.

Colonel Roosevelt: Colonel Roosevelt, the third and final volume of Edmund Morris’s epic biography of Theodore Roosevelt covers Roosevelt’s personal and professional life following the conclusion of his second term as President. Among other things, the book details Roosevelt’s ill-fated bid for the Presidency in 1912, in which his candidacy arguably succeeded in splitting the Republican vote sufficiently to ensure Woodrow Wilson’s election.

The political aspect of Roosevelt’s post-Presidency are interesting enough, but it is the personal side of the story that makes this fascinating and well-written book worth reading. Even though there are critical parts of Roosevelt’s persona that do not translate well into our culturally different era, what does come through in Morris’s account is what an extraordinary person Roosevelt was.

Roosevelt was a man of astonishing ambition. He was also a man of unusual personal courage, strength and perseverance. During the 1912 election, he was struck at close range by an assassin’s bullet (his folded speech and glasses case, stuffed in his breast pocket, probably saved his life). When he found that the shot had not killed him, he proceeded to deliver his planned speech, while bleeding from the gunshot wound, with the would-be assassin’s bullet lodged against his ribs.

Perhaps his most extraordinary feat of personal courage came during the scientific expedition in which he participated in 1913-14. Roosevelt was 55 years old at them. The 17-person expedition’s purpose was to map the Brazilian river ominously called Rio da Dúvida  -- the River of Doubt.

Almost from the start, the expedition was plagued with problems. Insects, disease, unsuitable supplies and equipment created innumerable difficulties. The expedition’s long and troubled journey turned dangerous as the expedition encountered a seemingly endless series of cascades. The torrents required repeated portages through hostile, forbidding jungle and nearly impassible terrain. When they were able to return to the water, their canoes were battered and damaged. In the midst of these difficulties disaster struck. A canoe carrying Roosevelt’s son, Kermit, and another member of the expedition capsized in a whirlpool. Before help could arrive, the other man had drowned.

A few days later, when one of the expedition’s pontoon boats capsized in a rapid, several people, including Roosevelt, rushed to rescue the men who fell in the water. The men were saved, but Roosevelt cut his leg on a rock. The wound soon became infected. The infection led to coronary stress. Roosevelt was in mortal danger:

The next morning, Roosevelt had reason to believe he was in the valley of the shadow of death. … Rock walls that could have been sliced by civil engineers blocked the sky. Kermit and Lyra lost yet another canoe, reducing the flotilla once more to two pontoons. A reconnaissance party came back with news of rapids continuing as far as the eye could see.

At this very moment, the expedition was stunned by the sound of gunfire. A disaffected member of the support team, overcome by privation and stress, had ambushed another member of the team and shot him dead. The murderer fled into the jungle.

After they had buried the murder victim, Roosevelt was overcome with fever and he became delirious. Fortunately, the fever subsided but at the same time his son became ill. Roosevelt wrote in his journal “The expedition is in a state of peril.” With damaged canoes, diminished supplies, two men dead, one man missing and two others deathly ill, the expedition stumbled ahead. As the cascades finally diminished, the expedition was able to advance, and within a matter of days, the expedition reached a military outpost that had been established a month before in anticipation of their eventual arrival.

When Roosevelt finally arrived back in New York, he arrived “haggard, malaria-yellow, limping on a cane, his belt hauled in six inches.” Even so, just five weeks later, Roosevelt was in Madrid for Kermit’s wedding, finding time to meet with the King and Queen of Spain. He made time to meet with Wilson on his return to Washington.

The tale of the expedition’s survival of their ordeal on the River of Doubt (now renamed Rio Roosevelt), with its drowning, murder, privation and disease, is remarkable enough by itself. But the fact that this tragic, nearly disastrous mission included (and almost led to the death of) a former President of the United States, makes this story nothing short of astonishing. In our time, we have had some ex-Presidents attempt and even accomplish some remarkable things. But for my money, nothing compares to Roosevelt’s participation in the descent of the River of Doubt.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link