Securities Litigation

Subscribe to Securities Litigation via RSS

One of the things that has happened in the wake of revelations of high-profile sexual misconduct as part of the #MeToo movement has been the rise of D&O litigation following after the revelations. However, this type of sexual misconduct follow-on litigation didn’t start with the rise of the #MeToo movement. Even before the #MeToo movement there were D&O lawsuits arising from sexual misconduct allegations. One of these earlier cases involved the retail jewelry chain Signet Jewelers. On November 26, 2018, Southern District of New York Judge Colleen McMahaon denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the case, in a ruling that may provide an interesting perspective on the many subsequent #MeToo follow on lawsuits. The November 26, 2018 opinion in the case can be found here.
Continue Reading Dismissal Motion Denied in Sexual Misconduct-Related Securities Suit

When news of the recent massive data breach at Marriott began circulating late last week, a colleague emailed and asked me how long I thought it would take for a D&O lawsuit to be filed. I emailed back that I thought there would be a securities class action lawsuit before the end of business on Monday (December 3). Turns out, I didn’t give the plaintiffs’ lawyers nearly enough credit for haste. The plaintiffs’ lawyers managed to file a securities class action lawsuit against the company on December 1, 2018, just one day after Marriott announced the breach. The lawsuit is the latest example both of a data breach-related D&O lawsuit and an event-driven securities suit, as discussed further below.
Continue Reading Marriott Hit with Data Breach-Related Securities Lawsuit

Late last month, Lion Air Flight 610 crashed into the Java Sea shortly after its takeoff in Jakarta, killing all 189 passengers and crew members on board. As details about the doomed flight have emerged, investigators have raised questions about the possible malfunction of new flight control features on the Boeing 737 MAX 8 jet involved in the crash, as well as about Boeing’s documentation and training relating to the flight control features. Under these circumstances, the possibility that there might be litigation is hardly surprising. What might be less obvious is that the litigation against Boeing relating to the crash might involve a securities class action lawsuit.
Continue Reading First The Plane Crash, Then The Securities Lawsuit

One idea that resurfaces from time to time is the suggestion that companies ought to adopt bylaw or charter provisions mandating the arbitration of shareholder claims, including claims under the federal securities laws. The current SEC Chair, Jay Clayton, has said that he does not consider the issue to be a top priority, seemingly shelving the idea for the time being. But various contending parties have continued to agitate on the issue.

In a recent white paper issued by a consumer advocacy group and signed by a number of prominent securities law professors, the professors state their view that Delaware law does not permit federal securities law claims to be resolved in arbitration or in any specific forum. The white paper is sure to stir the pot. As discussed below, it could also have an impact on a case currently pending in Delaware state court that could dictate whether or not Delaware companies may designate a federal court forum for the resolution of claims under the federal securities laws.
Continue Reading Delaware Law and Mandatory Shareholder Claim Arbitration Provisions

The recent massive wildfires in California have caused the loss of dozens of lives, and many more people are missing. Thousands have been displaced and many millions more have been affected. The property damage has been devastating. The Camp Fire in Northern California alone has destroyed tens of thousands of 10,000 homes and businesses. Even as the fires raged, questions surrounding the fires’ causes were raised. Media stories have circulated raising the possibility that the electric utilities may be to blame for starting the fires. There undoubtedly will be substantial inquiries and perhaps even liability proceedings. Now it appears that the accountability process may not only include efforts by property owners and survivor and loved ones to recoup their losses, but it may also include securities lawsuits by utility company investors who claim they were misled about the company’s fire safety readiness and potential liability exposure.
Continue Reading First, Wildfires. Then What? Securities Litigation, Of Course

Priya Cherian Huskins

As I noted in prior posts, in March 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Cyan case that state courts retain concurrent jurisdiction for liability actions under the Securities Act of 1933. This development has been regarded as primarily a concern for IPO companies.  However, as discussed in the attached guest from Priya Cherian Huskins of Woodruff Sawyer, the Supreme Court’s affirmation of concurrent state court jurisdiction for ’33 Act claims may also be a concern for M&A companies as well.  A version of this article was previously published in Woodruff Sawyer’s D&O Notebook. I would like to thank Priya for her willingness to allow me to publish her 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 like to submit a guest post. Here is Priya’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: A New Twist in M&A Litigation: Section 11 Cases in State Court

When the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in its March 2018 Cyan decision that state courts retain concurrent jurisdiction over ’33 Act liability actions, commentators suggested that plaintiffs’ lawyers would opt to pursue Section 11 claims in state court, either in preference to or in addition to parallel federal court actions. Indeed, in many lawsuits filed in the past few months involving IPO companies, plaintiffs’ lawyers have indeed resorted to state court. However, a recent decision from a Texas state court highlights the fact that  whatever advantages the plaintiffs’ lawyers may think they have by proceeding in state court, their claims will still face scrutiny – and in the specific case at issue in Texas, dismissal. As noted in a November 13, 2018 Law 360 article (here), the Texas court’s dismissal is among the first by a state court following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cyan.
Continue Reading Texas State Court Dismisses Post-Cyan Securities Act Lawsuit

In June 2017 when the U.S. Supreme Court entered its opinion in California Public Employees Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, in which the Court affirmed the Second Circuit and held that Securities Act of 1933’s three-year statute of repose is not subject to equitable tolling, one question that was asked was whether the Court’s ruling would encourage more securities suit class members to file protective actions before the statutory period expired in order to preserve their right to opt-out of the class action.

Recent developments in a securities class action involving VEREIT, a real estate investment trust and successor-in-interest to the troubled American Realty Capital Properties, in which VEREIT has entered three opt-out settlements with large institutional investors totaling a whopping $217.5 million, suggest that the concerns raised following the ANZ Securities decision may be coming to pass. These developments may also portend a very complicated future for U.S. securities class action litigation, at least in the most serious cases. Alison Frankel’s October 29, 2018 post on her On the Case blog about the VEREIT opt-out settlements can be found here.
Continue Reading Do Opt-Out Settlements of $217.5 Million Foreshadow the Future of Securities Litigation?  

As I have noted in prior posts (most recently here), in recent months, allegations of price fixing have given rise to follow-on securities class action lawsuit filings against generic drug companies alleged to have participated in the price-fixing. All of these kinds of cases are examples of a securities litigation trend in which securities suit filings following in the wake of underlying antitrust allegations. In the latest example of this type of lawsuit, a plaintiff shareholder has now filed a securities class action lawsuit against McKesson Corporation, asserting securities claims based on the company’s alleged involvement in a scheme to fix prices for generic drugs. As discussed below, this new lawsuit has a number of interesting features.
Continue Reading Securities Lawsuit Filing Follows Generic Drug Price Fixing Allegations

In 1995, Congress passed the Private Securities Class Action Reform Act (PLSRA) over President Clinton’s veto in order to try to address perceived securities class action litigation abuses. According to a new report from the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform entitled “A Rising Threat: The New Class Actions Racket That Harms Investors and the Economy,” despite the PSLRA’s reforms, many of the same abuses that led to the PSLRA’s enactment have returned, and as a result the securities class action system is “spinning out of control.” According to the report, the time has come for Congress to intervene again to curb “abusive practices that enable the filing of unjustified actions.” The Institute’s October 23, 2018 report can be found here. 
Continue Reading Time for Another Round of Securities Class Action Litigation Reform?