One of the interesting (and challenging) quirks of the federal securities laws is that Section 22 of the ’33 Act provides concurrent state court jurisdiction for liability actions under the Act. Many courts have taken the view that legislation subsequent to the ’33 Act preempts state court jurisdiction under Section 22, as discussed here. While the courts continue to struggle with the preemption question, some plaintiffs are continuing to file ’33 Act actions in state court, particularly in California.
In the following guest post, Priya Cherian Huskins, Donna Moser, and Vysali Soundararajan of Woodruff-Sawyer & Co. take a look at these state court securities lawsuits, and in particular at the recently increased numbers of state court filings in California, as well as the practical implications. I would like to thank Priya, Donna and Vysali for their willingness to publish their article 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 Priya, Donna, and Vysali’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: IPO Companies, Section 11 Suits, and California State Court

As I have noted previously on this site, there are many fewer publicly traded companies in the United States now than there were within past decades. I have noted this phenomenon primarily within the context of
IPO activity so far this year is well off the pace compared to this time a year ago.
In a 
The number of securities class action lawsuit filings raising accounting-related allegations rose in 2015, as did the number and value of accounting-related securities suit settlements, according to a new report from Cornerstone Research. In addition to the increase in the number of accounted-related lawsuit filings, the market capitalization losses associated with those new filings increased as well. The April 19, 2016 report, entitled “Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements: 2015 Review and Analysis,” can be found
Complicated coverage issues frequently arise in connection with D&O claims, and that is particularly true with respect to claims arising in bankruptcy. In the following guest post, Paul Ferrillo and Ronit Berkovich of the Weil, Gotshal & Manges law firm take a look at the key D&O insurance considerations that companies heading into bankruptcy should keep in mind. I would like to thank Paul and Ronit for their willingness 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 like to submit a guest post. Here is Paul and Ronit’s guest post.
One of the recurring battles in the continuing wars about whether or not a policyholder’s late provision of notice of claim precludes coverage is the question whether or not the “notice prejudice” rule applies. The notice prejudice rule specifies that the insurer can assert late notice as a coverage defense only if the delayed notice prejudiced the insurer. But if the notice prejudice rule applies, what constitutes “prejudice”? In an April 14, 2016 decision (
In its 