In my recent annual round-up of the top stories in the world of D&O liability, I noted that among the key D&O issues is the possibility of claims against corporate directors and officers arising out of cybersecurity incidents. One of the more interesting cybersecurity-related D&O claims in recent years is the securities class action lawsuit a plaintiff shareholder filed against FedEx in connection with the company’s disclosures concerning the “NotPetya” virus cyberattack on its European operations. What made the lawsuit interesting is that it involved not the company’s disclosures at the time of the cyber incident but rather concerned the company’s subsequent statements about the company’s recovery from the attack and the attack’s longer-term impact on its finances, operations, and business strategy. In a February 4, 2021 opinion (here), Southern District of New York Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the FedEx NotPetya securities lawsuit, with prejudice. As I discuss below, the opinion has some interesting lessons on the importance of precautionary disclosure.
Continue Reading FedEx “NotPetya” Cyberattack Securities Suit Dismissed
Guest Post: Court of Appeals Warns Against Complacency in the PSLRA’s Safe Harbor
One of the most important ways a company can try to avoid potential liability under the federal securities laws is to incorporate precautionary disclosure in its public statements and regulatory filings. However, in a June 23, 2015 decision in In re Harman International Industries Securities Litigation (here), the D.C. Circuit provided a reminder to companies on the importance of keeping their precautionary disclosures up-to-date.
In the following guest post, Bruce A. Ericson and Stacie Kinser of the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP law firm take a detailed look at the D.C. Circuit’s recent opinion and consider the decision’s practical implications for companies’ precautionary disclosures. Ericson is a partner and Kinser is an associate at the Pillsbury law firm. Ericson is also Managing Partner of Pillsbury’s San Francisco Office, and Co-Head of Pillsbury’s Securities Litigation and Enforcement Team. A version of this article previously was published as a Pillsbury client alert and on Law 360.
I would like to thank Bruce and Stacie for their willingness to publish their article as a guest post on my site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Bruce and Stacie’s guest post.
********************************************
SEC Rule 10b-5 makes it unlawful to misstate a material fact (or omit to say something if the omission would render misleading what you do say) in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) created a safe harbor for statements that are forward-looking and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. In a recent decision, the D.C. Circuit revisited the standard for forward-looking statements, and placed special emphasis on the accompanying cautionary language, holding that statements which fail to account for historical facts cannot be meaningful. The opinion should serve as a timely reminder for companies to review and update their cautionary language.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Court of Appeals Warns Against Complacency in the PSLRA’s Safe Harbor