Photo of Kevin LaCroix

Kevin LaCroix

Subscribe to Kevin LaCroix's Posts

Kevin M. LaCroix is an attorney and Executive Vice President, RT ProExec, a division of RT Specialty. RT ProExec is an insurance intermediary focused exclusively on management liability issues.

Follow:Read more about Kevin LaCroixKevin's Linkedin ProfileKevin's Twitter Profile

Short sellers have a complicated relationship to securities class action litigation, as several prior posts on this site have noted (most recently here). Among the more unusual roles short sellers can play in a securities suit is to serve as lead plaintiff. One recent high-profile case where a short seller acted as lead plaintiff is the suit filed against Overstock, its founder and former CEO, Patrick Byrne, and other executives. The short seller alleged, with some plausibility, that Overstock and Byrne had attempted to mount a “short squeeze” targeted at the short sellers. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and in an interesting October 15, 2024, opinion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. The appellate court’s opinion has several interesting features, as discussed below.Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Short Seller’s Securities Suit Against Overstock

In the wake of the SPAC frenzy, which peaked in 2021, investors have filed a significant number of SPAC-related lawsuits, including not only securities class action lawsuits, but also including Delaware direct action breach of fiduciary duty suits. The Delaware actions have so far in at least some cases proven to be successful. More recently, however, the Delaware courts have projected impatience and even fatigue with these kinds of suits, and in at least one recent case, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. However, in a more recent case, the Delaware Chancery Court, although noting that the plaintiff’s allegations are “not strong” and “close to the line between an adequate and an inadequate claim,” denied the defendants’ dismissal motion. There are several interesting features to court’s opinion, as discussed below. The Delaware Chancery Court’s October 18, 2024, opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Del. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in SPAC-Related Action

A Dutch court has entered a significant ruling in one of the long-running efforts by Petrobras investors to recover damages following the company’s bribery scandal. The Petrobras U.S. securities class action lawsuit settled in 2018 for $3 billion. Investors who purchased their Petrobras shares outside the U.S. were not part of that settlement, and these investors have pursued claims elsewhere, including in the Netherlands, where an action filed by a Foundation acting on behalf of a group of investors is pending. In a ruling last week, the District Court of Rotterdam rejected the Foundation’s claims under Brazilian and Argentinian law. The Court also ruled on bondholders’ claims under Luxembourg and Dutch law, as discussed below. The court’s judgment is subject to appeal. Petrobras’s October 30, 2024, filing with the SEC on Form 6-K describing the court’s judgment can be found here.Continue Reading Court Rules on Petrobras Investors’ Claims in Dutch Collective Action

Long-time readers know that the significant amount of SPAC activity in past years led to a surge in SPAC-related litigation. Some of this litigation has taken the form of traditional securities class action lawsuits. However, among the more noteworthy developments in the rise of SPAC-related litigation has been the emergence of a separate type of suit, the Delaware direct action breach of fiduciary class action lawsuit, sometimes referred to a MultiPlan claim in reference to the first suit of the type to be filed. As detailed below, these kinds of lawsuits have gone through a relatively swift evolution. Many of the these kinds of cases remain pending, have not yet reached the settlement stage. However, the GeneDX lawsuit, which is one of these kinds of cases, recently settled for $21 million, subject to court approval. There are a number of interesting aspects of this settlement, as discussed below. The parties settlement stipulation in the case can be found here.Continue Reading Delaware SPAC-Related Direct Action Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit Settles for $21 Million

Many private company D&O insurance policies have a so-called antitrust exclusions that precludes coverage for claims alleging violations of the antitrust laws. However, these exclusions are written broadly and often seek to preclude a wide range of kinds of claims, beyond just claims alleging violations of the antitrust laws. A recent case from the Eastern…

Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba, whose American Depository Shares (ADS) trade on the NYSE, has agreed to settle a long-running securities class action lawsuit in which the company was alleged to have misrepresented its exclusivity practices and certain aspects of the planned but withdrawn IPO of its financial affiliate, Ant Group. The company has agreed to pay $433.5 million to settle the lawsuit. The settlement is subject to court approval. As discussed below, this settlement has several interesting features.Continue Reading Alibaba Settles Securities Suit Over Exclusivity Practices and Ant Group’s Scuttled IPO for $433.5 Million

Standard D&O insurance policies typically include an exclusion precluding coverage for claims brought by one insured against another insured. This exclusion also typically has a carve-back to the exclusion preserving coverage claims brought by bankruptcy officials, such as a trustee or received. One recurring question is whether or not a claim brought against an insured person by the company acting as debtor-in-possession is precluded by the exclusion, or whether the bankruptcy carve-back preserves coverage for the claim.

In an interesting October 3, 2024, decision, a bankruptcy court judge presiding over the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Walker County Hospital Corporation, and applying Texas law, held that a claim by the Hospital acting as debtor-in-possession against the Hospital’s former CEO fell within the bankruptcy carve-back, and therefore that the insured vs. insured exclusion did not preclude coverage. The court’s analysis of this recurring question is interesting, as discussed below. A copy of the bankruptcy court’s October 3, 2024, opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Debtor-in-Possession’s Suit Against Former CEO

Earlier this week, the SEC announced that it had filed settled charges against four companies for alleged misleading disclosures concerning cybersecurity incidents at the companies. The charges against the companies arose out of the SEC’s investigation of companies potentially affected by the compromise of SolarWinds’ Orion software. One of the four companies was additionally charged with disclosure controls and procedures violations. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s charges, each company agreed to the entry of a cease-and-desist order against them. The companies agreed to pay civil penalties ranging from $4 million to $990,000. The SEC’s October 22, 2024, press release about the charges against the four companies can be found here.Continue Reading SEC Charges Four Companies for “Downplaying” Cyber Incidents

With the news broke within the last few weeks that months earlier the SEC had quietly disbanded its Climate and ESG task force, the agency took pains to emphasize that the winding up of the Task Force did not mean that the agency was no longer policing ESG-related issues. At least one recent development underscores the fact that the agency is continuing to monitor ESG concerns, particularly “greenwashing”-type concerns. Earlier this week, the agency initiated entered an agreed cease-and-desist order against investment adviser WisdomTree Asset Management, based on alleged misstatements and compliance failures relating to the firm’s execution of its ESG investment strategy. Among other things, the agency alleged that the firm’s funds invested in the investment classes it had said it would avoid.Continue Reading SEC Charges Investment Adviser With Failing to Adhere to Stated ESG Investment Criteria

In the following guest post, Syed S. Ahmad, Geoffrey B. Fehling and Evan J. Warshauer of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP’s Insurance Coverage Group analyze a New York federal judge’s recent decision to grant an insured’s motion to transfer venue in a coverage matter, highlighting key considerations related to forum selection and related strategy. This article was originally published on October 4, 2024 online with Westlaw Today. Reproduced with permission from Thomson Reuters. Further duplication is prohibited.Continue Reading Guest Post: New York Federal Court Reinforces Importance of Forum Selection for Insurance Disputes