Many Americans were surprised by the outcome of the recent U.S. Presidential election. As unexpected as the results may have been, the fact is that on January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. Even among his supporters, there is a great deal of uncertainty about what a Trump presidency will actually mean. Many of the larger questions – foreign and diplomatic affairs, trade plans, military security, economic policy — are more appropriately addressed elsewhere. In this blog post, I lay out some of my thoughts about what Mr. Trump’s election may mean for the business litigation environment.
Continue Reading O.K., America, He Won the Election – Now What?
Guest Post: IPO Lock-Up Agreement Parties Not a “Group” Liable for Short-Swing Profits
In the following guest post, attorneys from the Paul Weiss law firm review and analyze a November 3, 2016 Second Circuit decision (here) in which the appellate court held that the standard pre-IPO lock-up agreements between a company’s pre-IPO shareholders and the company’s lead IPO underwriters do not make those parties a “group” within Section 13(d) of the ’34 Act, and therefore that the lock-up agreement alone is insufficient to trigger Section 16(b) short-swing profit liability. I would like to thank the Paul Weiss attorneys for their willingness to allow me to publish their article 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 the Paul Weiss attorneys’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: IPO Lock-Up Agreement Parties Not a “Group” Liable for Short-Swing Profits
Investors File Climate Change Related Securities Suit Against Exxon Mobil
For many years, I have been raising the possibility of climate change-related corporate and securities litigation. However, despite my best prognostication, the climate change-related corporate and securities lawsuits have basically failed to materialize – that is, until now. On November 7, 2016, investors filed a purported securities class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas against Exxon Mobil Corporation and certain of its directors and officers. The lawsuit specifically references the company’s climate change-related disclosures, as well as the company’s valuation of its existing oil and gas reserves. One lawsuit doesn’t make a trend, and many of the lawsuit’s allegations relates specifically to Exxon Mobil and its particular disclosures. Nevertheless, the filing of the lawsuit raises the question whether there may be other climate change-related disclosure cases ahead. A copy of the November 7, 2016 lawsuit can be found here.
Continue Reading Investors File Climate Change Related Securities Suit Against Exxon Mobil
Generic Drug Companies Hit With Antitrust Enforcement Follow-On Securities Suits
In a recent post, I noted that plaintiffs’ lawyers had recently launched a series of securities class action lawsuits against several poultry producers in the wake of news that companies in that industry were the target of antitrust enforcement action. Now news has emerged that antitrust regulators may be targeting companies in a different sector, the generic drug manufacturing industry. Within days of the news, plaintiffs’ lawyers have filed several securities class action lawsuits against several generic drug companies — the latest companies to be hit with follow-on securities suits following news of antitrust enforcement actions.
Continue Reading Generic Drug Companies Hit With Antitrust Enforcement Follow-On Securities Suits
Guest Post: Hidden Lessons from Anthony Weiner’s Laptop (Computer)
A great deal of media attention has been paid to the contents of Anthony Weiner’s laptop computer, including the existence of emails between or among Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin. However, questions about the legality of investigative actions taken with respect to the computer have largely been overlooked. In the following guest post, John Reed Stark, President of John Reed Stark Consulting and former Chief of the SEC’s Office of Internet Enforcement, examines these issues as part of a comprehensive review the legal issues pertaining to electronic evidence gathered and sought during criminal and civil investigations. A version of this article originally appeared on CybersecurityDocket. I would like to thank John for his willingness to publish his article as a guest post on my 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 John’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Hidden Lessons from Anthony Weiner’s Laptop (Computer)
Del. Court Holds Settlement Amounts Not Uninsurable Disgorgement
Insurers frequently contend that their amounts paid as disgorgement are uninsurable as a matter of law. Whether or not this principle is true as a general matter still begs the question of whether or not the amounts for which coverage is sought represent “disgorgement.” In an interesting October 20, 2016 opinion (here), Delaware Superior Court Judge Jan R. Jurden, applying New York law to the issue, held that amounts TIAA-CREF paid in settlement of three underlying class action lawsuits did not represent uninsurable disgorgement. Judge Jurden expressly distinguished a series of decisions in which New York courts had ruled that settlement amounts paid in settlement of regulatory enforcement actions represented uninsurable disgorgement.
Continue Reading Del. Court Holds Settlement Amounts Not Uninsurable Disgorgement
Ninth Circuit Holds Applicability of Insured vs. Insured Exclusion to FDIC-R Claims to be Ambiguous
During the course of the wave of failed bank litigation following in the wake of the global financial crisis has been a raft of related coverage litigation addressing the question of whether coverage for claims by the FDIC as receiver of the failed bank against the bank’s former directors and officers is precluded by the D&O insurance policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion. A number of courts have found the exclusion to be ambiguous and therefore that the exclusion does not preclude coverage for the FDIC-R’s claims (for example, refer here), while other courts have found the specific exclusions at issue to unambiguously preclude coverage (refer for example here). In the most recent court decision to address these issues, the Ninth Circuit, in a short unpublished October 19, 2016 per curiam opinion (here) affirmed the holding of the district court finding the Insured vs. Insured exclusion applicability to claims brought by the FDIC as receiver is ambiguous, and therefore the exclusion cannot be applied to preclude coverage for the FDIC’s claims against the former directors and officers of the failed Pacific Coast National Bank.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds Applicability of Insured vs. Insured Exclusion to FDIC-R Claims to be Ambiguous
Guest Post: Dutch Collective Actions vs. Collective Settlements
As collective investor actions have become an increasingly global phenomenon, a recurring question has been whether another jurisdiction will emerge as the preferred forum for aggrieved investors to pursue their claims. Among the countries often mentioned in this context it the Netherlands, owing to the country’s collective settlement procedures. In a recent post, I noted a September 2016 decision from the Amsterdam District Court and suggested that the court’s jurisdictional ruling could diminish the usefulness and appeal of the Dutch collective settlement procedures. In the following guest post, Jonathan Richman of the Proskauer Rose law firm clarifies that the Dutch court’s ruling pertained to the country’s collective action procedures, not the separate collective settlement procedures, and that, contrary to my blog post’s suggestion, the court’s jurisdictional ruling arguably does not diminish the collective settlement procedures’ utility. I would like to thank Jonathan for his willingness to publish his article 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 Jonathan’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Dutch Collective Actions vs. Collective Settlements
Guest Post: Jury Applies Georgia’s Business Judgment Rule
As readers will recall, last week I published a post about the split verdict a Northern District of Georgia jury entered in the civil lawsuit the FDIC had filed against certain former directors of the failed Buckhead Community Bank. The verdict arose in one of the rare failed bank cases to actually go all the way to trial. In the following guest post, Robert Long Tod Sawicki, Elizabeth Gingold Clark and Lauren Tapson Macon of the Alston & Bird law firm discuss the Buckhead Community Bank lawsuit trial and verdict. Alston & Bird represents the defendants in the case. I would like to thank Robert and his colleagues for their willingness to allow me to publish their article as a guest post. 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 the Alston & Bird attorneys’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Jury Applies Georgia’s Business Judgment Rule
Further Frisbee Photos
According to the calendar, we have somehow reached November, and that can only mean one thing: time for another round of readers’ Frisbee photos.
Continue Reading Further Frisbee Photos