Securities Litigation

Subscribe to Securities Litigation via RSS
James R. Lane

As I have noted in prior posts, securities class action litigation represents a significant part of the corporate liability landscape in Canada. In the following guest post, James R. Lane, a founding partner of the Toronto law firm of Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP, takes a look at a recent important decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal addressing director and officer liability issues under the Ontario Securities Act. A version of this article previously was published as an alert to the law firm’s clients. I would like to thank Jim for his willingness to allow 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 Jim’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Directors and Officers Must Defend Secondary Market Misrepresentation Claim

As I noted in a post last week discussing the derivative lawsuit and settlement involving 21st Century Fox, allegations of failure to prevent alleged misconduct within company operations or at company facilities can translate into potential liability exposure for the company and its senior management. Another example of this phenomenon has emerged. In the weeks just after RYB Education completed its late September 2017 IPO, news reports began circulating of alleged child abuse at company preschool education facilities in China. Now a shareholder has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. against the company and certain of its executives. As discussed below, this new lawsuit represents the latest example of several different securities class action lawsuit filing trends.
Continue Reading Chinese Preschools’ Child Abuse Reports Lead to U.S. Securities Suit Against Recent IPO Company

A recurring issue in securities cases involves the question of when plaintiffs may rely on the presumption of reliance under the fraud on the market doctrine. To invoke the presumption plaintiffs must show that the defendant company’s securities trade on an efficient market, which in turn raises the question of what the plaintiffs must show in order to demonstrate market efficiency. In the following guest post, attorneys from the Paul Weiss law firm review a recent Second Circuit decision on this issue, Waggoner v. Barclays PLC (here). I would like to thank the attorneys from the Paul Weiss law firm for allowing me to publish this article as a guest post. 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 Paul Weiss attorneys’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Second Circuit: Price Impact Evidence Not Always Necessary to Establish Market Efficiency

As I have previously noted on this blog (most recently here), one of the most significant recent developments in the D&O claims arena has been the global rise of collective investor actions. One factor in this development in Europe has been the non-binding 2013 Collective Redress Recommendation, in which the European Commission recommended that each of the EU’s 28 member states adopt collective redress mechanisms. Many of the member states have now adopted some form of collective redress but the approaches the various states have taken are not uniform.

In an October 24, 2017 publication entitled “Collective Redress Tourism: Preventing Forum Shopping in the EU” (here), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Forum asks whether the diversity of procedures adopted, and in particular the diversity of safeguards the member states have put in place, along with litigants’ relative freedom to choose between jurisdictions, has led to potentially detrimental forum shopping. The publication raises a number of interesting questions, which I discuss below.
Continue Reading Has the Rise of Collective Investor Actions in Europe Led to Forum Shopping?

As a result of the PSLRA’s heightened pleading standard and pre-dismissal motion discovery bar, as well as the requirements of cases such as Tellabs, plaintiffs in liability suits under the federal securities laws frequently rely on confidential witnesses. This practice has led to  the “confidential witness problem” in securities litigation. In a September 25, 2017 post on The CLS Blue Sky Blog entitled “Confidential Distortion: Dealing with Confidential Witnesses in Securities Litigation” (here), Columbia Law School Professor John Coffee takes a look at the problems that have arisen in connection with confidential witness practices and the ways court have tried to deal with the problems. He then explores some possible “best practices” for courts and parties to use to try to avoid the problems, which I discuss below.
Continue Reading Addressing the Use of Confidential Witnesses in Securities Litigation

The news late last week that London’s transport authority had stripped ride-hailing firm Uber of its ride-hire license on the grounds that it was “unfit to operate” in the U.K. capital was merely the latest blow to the company, following a string of scandals, probes, and damaging revelations. Now the company – which, despite its enormous size, is still a privately held firm — has been hit with a federal court securities class action lawsuit, the most recent instance where one of the high-flying “unicorn” companies has been hit with a securities fraud lawsuit after a decline in fortune. The new lawsuit has a number of interesting features, discussed below.
Continue Reading Though a Private Company, Uber Hit With Securities Class Action Lawsuit

As has been well-documented, the United States in the middle of an “epidemic” involving the abuse of prescription and non-prescription opioids. The companies that manufacture and distribute these drugs have been hit with a “barrage” of lawsuits, filed by states, counties, and cities. Just last week, the state of Arizona filed a lawsuit against a drug company alleging that the company had fraudulently marketed a powerful opioid painkiller.  As this lawsuit wave has grown, shareholders and others have also climbed on the litigation bandwagon. In recent days, shareholders have filed a series of lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and distributors and their directors and officers. Just as the number of lawsuits filed by governmental entities seems likely to continue to grow, the number of investor suits against opioid drug companies seems likely to grow as well.
Continue Reading Securities Suits Hit Opioid Drug Companies

What factors might indicate a likelihood of financial misreporting? There might be markers in companies’ financial statements, for example, with respect to reserving practices or practices with respect to other estimated items. There may be more general indicators as well, as, for example where companies reliably hit their revenue estimates due to a rush of end of reporting period sales. According to a recent academic study, attitudes in the community where businesses are located may also affect companies’ propensity for financial misreporting.

In a May 30, 2017 paper entitled “Gambling Attitudes and Financial Misreporting” (here), Dale Christensen of the University of Oregon, Keith Jones of the University of Kansas, and David Kenchington of Arizona State University, companies headquartered  in areas where residents hold gambling-friendly attitudes are more likely to intentionally misreport financial information. The authors findings were summarized in an August 14, 2017 Wall Street Journal article entitled “A Roll of the Dice on Financial Misreporting” (here).
Continue Reading Gambling Acceptance and Propensity for Financial Misreporting

Seventeen years ago this month, the SEC instituted Rule 10b5-1 to permit company insiders – who often hold a significant portion of their wealth in company stock – to sell their shares without incurring liability under the federal securities laws. The Rule permits insiders who have traded in company shares to rebut the inference of scienter by showing that the trades were pre-scheduled and not suspicious. Over time, questions have been raised about the ways that some company executives have tried to use the plans. As discussed in an August 10, 2017 memo by the Simpson Thacher law firm on the CLS Blue Sky Blog entitled “Combatting Securities Fraud with 10b5-1 Trading Plans” (here), “sales made under 10b5-1 plans can substantially assist a company in getting such a claim dismissed by helping to rebut the inference of scienter that normally results when plaintiffs present evidence of insider stock sales during the class period.”

However, as discussed further below, while the plans can provide a substantial defensive boost, there are a number of steps companies should take in order to improve the likelihood that the existence of the plan will provide the intended protection.
Continue Reading Rule 10b5-1 and the Defense of Securities Fraud Claims

Securities class action lawsuits were filed at a record pace in the first half of 2017, according to the latest report from Cornerstone Research. While the surge in securities suit filings is due in part to the rise of federal court merger objection lawsuit filings, both traditional securities suit filings and M&A filings were “at historic levels.” The Report, jointly prepared by Cornerstone Research in conjunction with the Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and entitled “Securities Class Action Filings – 2017 Mid-Year Assessment,” can be found here. Cornerstone Research’s July 25, 2017 press release about the report can be found here. My own analysis of the first half securities suit filings can be found here.
Continue Reading Cornerstone Research: First Half Securities Suit Filings at Record Pace