Every year after Labor Day, I take a step back to survey the most important current trends and developments in the world of Directors’ and Officers’ liability and insurance. This year’s review is set out below. As the following discussion shows, this is a particularly interesting time in the world of D&O.Continue Reading What to Watch Now in the World of D&O
As readers of this blog know, one of the vestiges of the SPAC frenzy that peaked in 2021 is a large volume of SPAC-related securities class action litigation; indeed, as I have recently noted, SPAC-related securities class action lawsuits continue to be filed. In addition to these federal court securities suits, prospective claimants with SPAC-related grievances have also filed Delaware state court breach of fiduciary duty actions, a form of litigation often referred to as “MultiPlan actions,” in reference to the MultiPlan lawsuit, which, as discussed here, was the first of these Delaware court actions to survive a motion to dismiss. Since the ruling in the MultiPlan case, plaintiffs have largely been successful in surviving dismissal motions in these kinds of cases.
However, as discussed in a June 2024 memo from the Skadden law firm (here), in May 2024, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the motion to dismiss in the SPAC-related direct action breach of fiduciary duty suit relating to Canoo Inc., a company that was the result of a 2020 merger with a publicly traded SPAC, Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV. According to the law firm memo, the Court’s ruling was the first opinion granting a motion to dismiss in a MultiPlan claim. As discussed below, the Court’s opinion reflects a number of interesting observations about the lawsuit and claims of this type. A copy of the Court’s May 31, 2024 opinion can be found here. Continue Reading Delaware Court Grants Dismissal Motion in SPAC Transaction Proxy Disclosure Case
For many years, Delaware’s courts emphasized that duty of oversight claims (often known as Caremark claims) are “possibly the most difficult theory in corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a judgment.” However, in a line of cases beginning with the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Marchand v. Barnhill, Delaware courts have sustained various plaintiffs’ assertion of breaches of the duty of oversight. This in turn encouraged more claimants to file duty of oversight claims, a development that clearly has alarmed the Delaware courts. The more recent result has been a series of cases in which the Delaware Chancery Court has emphatically shot down would-be duty of oversight claims.
The latest of these decisions is a ruling in a case involving the directors of Centene Corporation, in which Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s breach of the duty of oversight claims against the Centene board, in an opinion that emphasizes the high bar for Caremark liability. A copy of the July 12, 2024, opinion in Bricklayers Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v. Brinkley can be found here. A July 15, 2024, Memo from the Fried Frank law firm about the court’s ruling can be found here. Continue Reading Del. Chancery Court Rejects Oversight Breach Claims Against Centene’s Board
Long-time readers may recall that just a short time ago there was growing concern that New York’s courts might be becoming a preferred forum for aggrieved investors to pursue liability claims against non-U.S. companies’ executives, based on the companies’ home country laws. However, in early 2022, just as the alarm bells began to sound, New York courts issued a series of rulings dismissing various cases of this kind, suggesting that the furor might have been overblown. But even following these events, concern remained that New York’s courts might still prove to be available in at least certain circumstances for claims under home country law against non-U.S. companies and their executives.
A recent decision from a New York trial court, in which the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss a breach of fiduciary duty claim brought under Cayman law against former officers and directors of a Cayman company, confirms that, under some circumstances at least, New York courts may be an available forum for litigants to pursue these kinds of claims involving non-U.S. companies. The fact that the Court accepted the case, and the considerations that proved to be relevant to the court, are both instructive.Continue Reading NY Court Keeps Cayman Law D&O Suit Involving a Cayman Company
From time to time, I am asked to speak directly to corporate boards of directors. I find these opportunities endlessly fascinating. Among other things, I learn so much from the directors’ questions. One frequently recurring question I get is: what can directors do to avoid litigation or to be in a position better defend themselves if they are sued. The first thing I always talk about when asked these kinds of question is the importance of board minutes. Because this is one of my go-to talking points when I meet with boards, I was particularly pleased to see the recent post on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance blog written by Leo E. Strine, Jr., the former Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice and Chancellor, in which Strine highlights the importance of board minutes in corporate litigation. Strine’s comments are essential reading for anyone concerned with the liabilities of corporate directors. Strine’s April 4, 2024 article can be found here.Continue Reading The Importance of Board Minutes
For nearly 40 years, Delaware Corporations have been permitted to adopt corporate charter provisions exculpated their directors from liability. Effective August 1, 2022, Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporations Law (DGCL) was amended to permit Delaware corporations to adopt charter provisions exculpating officers, in order to provide officers with protection from liability for monetary damages similar to the protection available to directors. In the time since the officer exculpation amendment provision went into effect, many Delaware corporations have adopted officer exculpation provisions; the record so far suggest that these provisions generally enjoy significant shareholder support. As discussed below, these developments should also be of interest to D&O insurance professionals.Continue Reading Companies Adopting Officer Exculpation Amendments to Corporate Charters
It is an idea that suddenly is all the rage – that companies should shake the Delaware dust off their feet and reincorporate elsewhere. Elon Musk has famously said, in the wake of the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision voiding his $55.8 billion pay package, that he will seek to reincorporate Tesla in Texas. (SpaceX, also a Musk company, has in fact already reincorporated in Texas.) The former Attorney General William Barr and another GOP official published a Wall Street Journal column arguing that Delaware’s courts are driving corporations away (as discussed here), and suggesting that companies increasingly will find it more attractive to be incorporated in Nevada or another state. Some companies have indeed left Delaware and reincorporated elsewhere – including not just SpaceX, but also TripAdvisor, for example. Why would a company change its state of incorporation from Delaware to another state? And with reference to the focus of this blog, does a company’s redomestication from Delaware to another state have implications for the potential liability exposures of the company’s directors and officers?Continue Reading Does a Del. Corp.’s Reincorporation in Another State Reduce D&O Liability Exposure?
As reflected in my recent post, last week I attended the PLUS D&O Symposium in New York. The sessions were great, but based on some comments of various panelists, there are some items for follow-up – for example, references that panelists made that need to be checked out, items that panelists suggested we should pursue, and so on. I have run down these various items, and I link to them below. I emphasize that these items will be of interest even if you didn’t attend the Symposium. I have also included below several other items from around the Internet as well.Continue Reading PLUS D&O Symposium Follow-Up and Other Notes
Readers undoubtedly are aware that late last week the judge presiding over the New York civil fraud trial against Donald Trump, the Trump Organization and related entities, and various Organization’s executives (including two of Trump’s sons) entered a post-trial verdict against the defendants that, together with pre-judgment interest, exceeds $450 million in value. In making the award, the judge concluded that Trump and the other defendants had fraudulently misrepresented the Organization’s and Trump’s financial condition to banks, insurance companies, and public officials. Of interest to readers of this blog, among the allegedly fraudulent acts was the procurement of D&O insurance, as well as surety insurance, through alleged misrepresentations. As discussed below, there are several interesting things about the insurance part of the court’s verdict. A copy of the February 16, 2024, Decision and Order of New York (New York County) Supreme Court Justice Arthur F. Engoron can be found here.Continue Reading The Insurance Part of the Massive Trump Civil Fraud Verdict
Portions of the U.K. Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 went into effect just after Christmas 2023. Who are the senior manager that the Act affects and how worried should they be? These are the questions Francis Kean, Partner in Financial Lines Team at McGill and Partners, asks in the following guest