In a recent post (here), David Kaplan of the Saxena White P.A. law firm and Lane Arnold, a Senior Director – Legal at the University of Texas/Texas A&M Investment Management Company (UTIMCO), discussed the Catch-22 in which the court’s rulings in the Valeant securities class action opt-out cases had put prospective securities suit opt-outs. In the following guest post, Kaplan and Hani Farah, also of the Saxena White law firm, update the prior post and discuss the June 16, 2021 Third Circuit decision in the Valeant case (here), in which the appellate court overturned the lower court’s rulings and rejected the “Forfeiture Rule” that put the opt-outs into the Catch-22. I would like to thank Dave and Hani for allowing me to publish their article on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s reader. Please contact me directly of you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Dave and Hani’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Update on The Valeant Appeal: Third Circuit Rejects The “Forfeiture Rule” for Opt-Outs
In a very interesting June 16, 2021 opinion, the Ninth Circuit has reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of the privacy and cybersecurity-related securities class action lawsuit filed against Google- parent Alphabet, Inc, relating the company’s discovery of and decision not to disclose a software vulnerability that exposed user data of nearly half a million users of the Google+ social media site. The appellate court’s decision, a copy of which can be found 
On June 15, 2021, the SEC announced that that it had settled charges that a title insurance company’s cybersecurity disclosure controls and procedures violated the agency’s public company reporting requirements. The title insurance company, First American Financial Corp., which neither admitted or denied the charges, agreed to a cease-and-desist order and to pay a penalty. The charges do not represent the first time the SEC has pursued actions against a company for cybersecurity-related disclosures, but they do underscore the agency’s focus on cybersecurity disclosure-related issues, a topic that may be a source of increased focus ahead.
Shortly after Marriott International’s November 2018 announcement that it had uncovered a data breach in the guest registration system of Starwood (which Marriott had acquired two years earlier), the company was hit with a raft of litigation, including both securities class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative lawsuits. In twin June 11, 2021 opinions, the federal district judge presiding over the various Marriott data breach-related lawsuits granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss both the consolidated securities suits and the consolidated derivative suits. The lengthy and detailed opinions make for interesting reading and underscore the challenge plaintiffs face in trying to turn a cybersecurity incident into a D&O claim. The opinion in the securities suit can be found 
The business pages have been full in recent months with tales of cyber extortion and ransomware. In an effort to try to explain these developments, some commentators have suggested that the availability of ransomware coverage under cyber insurance is a cause of the problem. In the following guest post, Paul Ferrillo takes on the question of the role of cyber insurance availability in the proliferation of ransomware incidents. Paul is a partner in the securities litigation group at the Seyfarth Shaw law firm. I would like to thank Paul for allowing 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 blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Paul’s article.
There have been several investment fads and mass enthusiasms this year that have been agitating the financial markets, but amidst the froth the fizziest speculative investments on the scene are non-fungible tokens (NFTs). This new asset class uses blockchain technology to track tokens that are attached to verify the authenticity of everything from artwork to sports highlights. The boosters of these assets have mined the enthusiasm for collectibles to drive sky-rocketing asset values for NFTs. With this new type of asset attracting so much attention and activity, it arguably should come as no surprise that the backers promoting NFTs have attracted litigation as well.
Volkswagen, several former executives –including Martin Winterkorn, the former Chair of the company’s Board of Management– and the company’s D&O insurers have reached an agreement to settle damages claims the company asserted against the executives relating to the company’s “Dieselgate” scandal. In March 2021, following a years-long investigation of the scandal by an outside law firm, the company filed the claims, in which the executives were alleged to have breached their duties to the company. The settlement, worth in the aggregate approximately $351 million in U.S. dollar terms, includes substantial payments both by the individual executives and by the company’s D&O insurers. The D&O insurers’ contribution reflects a separate settlement between the company and its insurers with respect to insurance coverage issues. A copy of VW’s June 9, 2021 press release describing the settlement can be found 
Since it was first instituted nearly 21 years ago, 
A court in the Netherlands has ruled that a collective investor action against Petrobras and related entities pending in the court can go forward, notwithstanding the arbitration clause in Petrobras’s articles of association. The defendants had sought to argue that because of the arbitration clause the foundation that was pursuing the Dutch action on behalf of investors had no standing to pursue the claims. The Dutch court’s May 26, 2021 ruling rejecting the defendants’ argument will now permit the action to go forward. A copy of Petrobras’s May 27, 2021 press release about the court’s ruling can be found