Tim J. Leech

Recent case law developments in Delaware’s courts underscore the importance for corporate boards to monitor “mission critical” operations at their companies. These developments have important corporate governance implications, as I detailed in a September blog post (here). In the following guest post, Tim J. Leach, FCPA FCA Managing Director Risk Oversight Solutions Inc. takes a deeper look at the corporate governance implications from the recent duty of oversight/duty to monitor case law. I would like to thank Tim for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this 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 Tim’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: “Mission Critical”: Director Liability Ticking Time Bomb

One of the hot topics in the corporate space over the last several months has been the question whether Delaware corporations should consider reincorporating in another state, such as Texas or Nevada. Much of the discussion in this re-domestication debate has centered on recent controversial decisions out of Delaware’s courts. The ongoing discussion of these issues resurfaced in the last few days with the news that Delaware Chancellor Katherine McCormick had rejected Tesla’s motion for reconsideration of her earlier rejection of Elon Musk’s $55.8 billion pay package.

A recent law review article by Yale Law Professor Jonathan R. Macey addresses the question whether, in light of the recent case law developments in the state’s courts, Delaware corporations will now be “Leaving for Las Vegas.” Professor Macey’s article considers the extent to which recent Delaware case law developments may motivate key Delaware constituents to consider incorporation alternatives. As discussed below, Professor Macey’s article has in turn triggered further discussion of the central questions about the recent output of Delaware’s courts in corporate and securities lawsuits.

Continue Reading Will Delaware Corporations Be “Leaving for Las Vegas”?

In recent days, SEC observers have speculated about who the new head of the agency will be in the incoming Trump Administration and what the new leadership might mean for the agency’s regulatory and enforcement agenda. While we await the upcoming changes, it is still worth asking what the agency has been up to from an enforcement standpoint in the most recently completed fiscal year (ended September 30, 2024). The agency’s recently issued enforcement activity report and a separate academic study of the agency’s enforcement activity against public companies and their subsidiaries both reveal some interesting and arguably unexpected information about what the agency has been doing. Among other things, the agency’s report shows that while the agency’s overall enforcement activity levels declined in the most recent fiscal year, the agency’s total recoveries were at record levels – but both of these observations require further discussion as well.

Continue Reading SEC’s FY 2024 Enforcement Activity Declined While Total Financial Remedies Surged

ESG has been and remains a serious concern for corporate executives. However, the role that it plays as a part of the corporate risk equation has changed. From a time not that long ago where companies were under pressure to establish their ESG credentials and promote ESG objectives, many companies now face an opposite politically charged backlash, that, among other things, has pushed some companies to walk back their ESG-related initiatives. For example, just this past week Walmart became the latest company to drop its DEI program in response to right-wing pressure, joining similar moves by Ford, Harley-Davidson, and Lowe’s, among others.  

In the latest example of ways that politically-motivated activists are attempting to turn companies’ ESG initiatives against them, last Wednesday a groups of eleven states’ attorneys general led by Texas AG Ken Paxton filed a federal court suit against Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street, alleging that the three institutional investors conspired to restrict the availability of coal, to the alleged detriment of consumers, and in alleged violation of federal and state antitrust laws. A copy of the Texas AG’s November 27, 2024, press release about the lawsuit can be found here. A copy of the state AGs’ complaint can be found here.

Continue Reading State AGs File ESG-Related Antitrust Suit Against Big Institutional Investors
Umesh Pratapa

In the following guest post, Umesh Pratapa takes a look at environmental liability risks under Indian law and consider the D&O insurance implications. Umesh is the Author of the handbook on D&O liability insurance published by Institute of Directors (IOD), India, and Consultant – liability insurance. I would like to thank Umesh for allowing me to publish his article on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to the site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Umesh’s article.

*************************************

Continue Reading Guest Post: India: Environmental Litigation Risks – D&O Liability Insurance

Is a company’s action against a corporate executive to recover the costs of defense the company advanced on his behalf “restitutionary” in nature and are the amounts involved therefore precluded from coverage under the D&O insurance policy’s definition of Loss? In an opinion that undoubtedly will gladden the hearts of policyholder-side advocates, a California appellate court held that it is not. As discussed below, there are a number of interesting features to the court’s opinion. The California Court of Appeals’ November 12, 2024 opinion can be found here.

Continue Reading CA Court: Suit to Recover Executive’s Defense Fees not “Restitutionary”

As often happens when companies are hit with securities class action lawsuits, Lululemon, which in August was sued in a securities suit, was hit with a parallel shareholder derivative lawsuit. The derivative suit allegations not only largely track the allegations in the prior securities suit, but the derivative suit complaint expressly refers to the prior securities lawsuit filings. However, there is an unusual twist. In addition to tracking the same allegations as the securities suit, the Lululemon derivative suit complaint contains an entirely new and different set of allegations – and the new set of allegations are interesting in their own right.

The new allegations relate to the Lululemon’s DEI program (or what Lululemon called its IDEA program, standing for Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Action). DEI programs have been the recent focus of attention, with, for example, some companies facing litigation for even having a DEA program, and other companies (such as Ford and Harley-Davidson) having to publicly back away from their DEI program in response to political pressure. The allegations in the new Lululemon derivative complaint do not seek to challenge the company for having adopted this kind of program; the allegations instead question the company’s actions for doing too little to combat discrimination and eliminate racial issues at the company. In the context of a changing environment surrounding ESG issues in general, and DEI issues in particular, the new Lululemon lawsuit represents an interesting development, as discussed below. The derivative complaint in the new lawsuit can be found here.

Continue Reading Lululemon Hit with Derivative Suit for Allegedly Ineffective DEI Program

The current Supreme Court term promised to be an interesting one from a securities law standpoint, as the Court had agreed to take up two cases dealing with key securities class action litigation issues. One of those cases is the securities case involving the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica’s user data scandal. The Facebook case would have required the Court to address an important and recurring disclosure related issue. However, on November 22, 2024, the Court issued a single-line order stating that “the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted,” meaning that the Supreme Court’s consideration of the Facebook case will now not go forward, and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the case, in which the appellate court reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of the case, will now stand. A copy of the Supreme Court’s November 22, 2024, order can be found here.

Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses Facebook Case, Saying Writ Improvidently Granted

As I have previously noted on this site (for example, here), a long-standing and frequently recurring litigation pattern has been the filing of a corporate or securities lawsuit in the wake of an antitrust enforcement action. In the latest example of this pattern, the card payment processing company Visa has been hit with a securities class action lawsuit after the DOJ launched an antitrust enforcement action against the company in September. There are several interesting features to this new lawsuit, as discussed below. The November 20, 2024, complaint against Visa can be found here.

Continue Reading Antitrust Enforcement Action Against VISA Leads to Follow-On Securities Suit
Michael W. Peregrine
Ashley Hoff

There is no doubt that the upcoming change in Presidential administration will have important implications across a wide range of issue. In some cases, the change will present unique challenges for corporate boards. As boards work their way through these changes and challenges, they will also face an altered corporate compliance oversight environment. In the following guest post, Michael W. Peregrine and Ashley Hoff of the McDermott Will & Emery LLP law firm consider the implications of this changed environment for corporate boards. I would like to thank Michael and Ashley for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this 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 the author’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: The Board’s Post-Election Oversight of Corporate Compliance