When the news circulated in February that the Equifax data breach securities lawsuit had settled for $149 million, I wondered whether the sizeable settlement might further encourage plaintiffs’ lawyers to file more securities suits against companies that had experienced cybersecurity incidents. As it has turned out, there have been no new cybersecurity incident-related securities suits filed since then – until now. Earlier this week, a plaintiff shareholder filed a securities suit against title insurance and insurance services company First American Financial Corp., which experienced a significant cybersecurity incident in May 2019. As discussed below, the filing of this complaint is noteworthy in several respects. A copy of the complaint in the recently filed First American securities lawsuit can be found here.
Continue Reading Title Insurance Company Hit with Cybersecurity Incident-Related Securities Suit
AIM’s Success and U.S. Capital Market Competitiveness
As I have noted in prior posts (most recently here), the several blue-ribbon panels that have recently examined the competitiveness of the U.S. financial markets have been particularly concerned with the apparent loss of company listings to overseas exchanges, particularly the London Stock Exchange’s Alternative Investment Market (AIM). These would-be reformers have cited AIM’s
IPOs, U.S. Companies and AIM
In a July 18, 2007 publication entiled "IPO Executive Insights 2007" (here) the Nixon Peabody law firm published the results of its survey of 100 chief executive officers and chief financial officers whose companies conducted initial public offerings in the past three years. The report contains a number of interesting observations, but perhaps
Pink Sheets Takes AIM
With a conscious nod to London’s Alternative Investment Market (AIM), Pink Sheets LLC has launched a new designation called OTCQX for domestic and international companies that meet certain criteria. In a March 5, 2007 press release (here), Pink Sheets announced that it had launched the designation for “reputable operating companies that wish to
Another Look at “Lucky” Options Grants
In an earlier post (here), The D & O Diary commented on the research published by Lucian Bebchuk of Harvard Law School and two colleagues, in which they examined over 19,000 options grant awards between 1996 and 2005, finding a disproportionately higher number of grants on the date during the month with the
AIM Reforms Rules for Companies
The would-be reformers who propose restructuring the U.S securities regulation regime cite the loss of U.S. IPO market share to overseas markets, particularly London’s Alternative Investment Market (AIM), as justification for regulatory reform. But as The D & O Diary has previously noted (most recently here and here), these overseas markets, especially the AIM,
Changing Circumstances in the Global Financial Marketplace
In a recent post (here), I noted that the cross-border Siemens bribery investigation shows that regulators throughout the world increasingly recognize the importance of vigilance and scrutiny, and that the extent of alleged misconduct in that case could spur further efforts for oversight and reform. In that same vein, a February 15, 2007
The Weak Case for Regulatory Reform Gets Even Weaker
At the heart of recent calls for regulatory reform in the Interim Report of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation and in the Bloomberg/Schumer Report is the assertion that the U.S. securities markets are losing global IPO marketshare because of supposed regulatory overkill and the litigious environment in the U.S. Accompanying this assertion is the
Global Forces Undercut Case for Regulatory Reforms
In prior posts (here, here and here), I argue that the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation (popularly known as the Paulson Committee) made a "weak case" in its Interim Report for regulatory reform. Virtually all of my points apply equally to the recently released Bloomberg/Schumer report as well. The themes I sounded
Is London’s “Light Touch” Attracting Fraudsters?
In my prior comments on the Paulson Committee’s calls for regulatory reform (most recently, here), I have suggested that perhaps the U.S. securities markets may be better off without at least some of the companies that are avoiding the U.S. exchanges’ tougher listing requirements. A recent report by a U.K. accounting firm contains interesting