One of the most distinctive and interesting securities class action litigation phenomena in recent years has been the rise of event driven litigation. In the following guest post, Jeffrey Lubitz, Executive Director at ISS Securities Class Action Services, and Elisa Mendoza, Vice President of Operations at ISS Securities Class Action Services, take a detailed look at the event driven securities litigation phenomenon, which they describe as a new driver in the growth of securities suit filings. A complete version of this ISS SCAS white paper with footnotes, endnotes, and sources is available on the ISS website. I would like to thank Jeff and Elisa 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 blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would l like to submit a guest post. Here is Jeff and Elisa’s article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Event Driven Securities Litigation: The New Driver in Class Action Growth
A 
In reliance on the federal forum provision (FFP) in the company’s corporate charter, a California Superior Court judge has granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the state court ’33 Act liability action pending against Uber. The ruling represents the second occasion on which a California state court has dismissed a state court ’33 Act liability action in reliance on an FFP in the corporate defendant’s charter, providing further hope that the adoption of FFPs may help companies address the Cyan problem – that is, the possibility of having to face identical ’33 Act liability actions in both state and federal court. The California Superior Court’s November 16, 2020 order in the Uber case can be found 
When I heard that moves by Chinese financial regulators had forced the Shangahi securities market to suspend Ant Group’s massive planned IPO, my first thought was that, if the offering had been planned for the U.S. the called halt to the offering might well give rise to a 
Readers of this blog well know that in recent years there has been 
When the news circulated in February that the Equifax data breach securities lawsuit had 
I know from conversations with D&O insurance professionals outside the United States that they find it somewhere between astounding and incomprehensible that a company whose unsponsored level 1 ADRs trade over-the-counter in the U.S. can be subject to a U.S. securities lawsuit – but, as discussed in prior posts (
It has been ten years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, in which the Court clarified that the U.S. securities laws applies only to securities transactions that take place in the United States, either on an exchange or otherwise. While the decision has had a significant impact on a wide range of cases, it has not yet “brought the predictability and consistency it promised” and it has “spawned a number of unintended consequences,” according to a recent memo from the Cleary Gottlieb firm. The September 24, 2020 memo, entitled “Foreign Securities Class Actions 10 Years After Morrison,” which details three specific problem areas that have emerged as the lower courts have interpreted and applied Morrison over the last decade, can be found 