Individuals serving as corporate officers take on significant potential liability exposures in the performance of their duties. As a result, most companies provide their officers with advancement, indemnification, and insurance protection for liabilities incurred while acting as corporate officers. However, it is not always clear who is an “officer” for purposes of claiming the benefits
The SEC has already made it clear that it intends to pursue enforcement actions against firms that misrepresent their Artificial Intelligence (AI) capabilities. In the latest example of the SEC’s commitment in that regard, earlier this week the SEC filed an enforcement action against an investment advisory firm, its holding company, and the two firms’ CEO, in part based on allegations that the advisory firm claimed it would provide exceptional returns for investors through its use of artificial intelligence. The firm also sought to attract investors by claims about the firm’s plans to go public and about the firm’s relationships to well-known banks and law firms. The SEC’s August 27, 2024, complaint against the firm and its CEO can be found here. The SEC’s August 27, 2024, press release can be found here.Continue Reading SEC Files Enforcement Action Alleging AI-Related and Pre-IPO Misrepresentations
Here we are, well into the fifth year since the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in the U.S., and yet coronavirus-related securities lawsuits are still being filed. In the latest example, earlier this week plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a securities class action lawsuit against the electronics manufacturing firm Methode Electronics based in part on allegations concerning problems allegedly caused by the company’s loss of key personnel during the pandemic. A copy of the August 26, 2024, complaint can be found here.Continue Reading COVID-Related Securities Suit Filed Against Electronic Components Company
In the following guest post, Daniele Favalli and Alessio Zolpi take a look at the availability of D&O insurance in connection with criminal proceedings in Switzerland. Daniele is an attorney admitted to the Zurich bar. He is a partner and co-head of the Dispute Resolution Team of the Zurich-based law firm VISCHER. Alessio is an attorney admitted to the Zurich bar and an associate in the Dispute Resolution Team at VISCHER. I would like to thank Daniele and Alessio for allowing me 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 Daniele and Alessio’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Switzerland: D&O Coverage Following Criminal Investigations
All eyes have recently been focused on the U.S. Department of Justice’s announcement of its new corporate whistleblower awards program. The DOJ’s program potentially could have a significant impact on future corporate crime prosecutions, but meanwhile the Securities Exchange Commission’s whistleblower program has been up and running for years and indeed just passed the thirteenth
At this point, there is nearly universal agreement that artificial intelligence (AI) is (or at least will be) transformative. It is also clear that as companies struggle to adapt to the new technology, they also face a host of challenges, including disclosure and regulatory risks, and the related risk of litigation. As a result, AI poses an exceptionally difficult set of circumstances for corporate directors, as discussed in an August 14, 2024, Wall Street Journal article entitled “Why AI Risks Are Keeping Board Members Up at Night” (here). As the article makes clear, while many directors recognize the importance of getting a handle on AI and how it might affect their companies, they are struggling to find the right approach even as AI-related questions become more pervasive.Continue Reading Boards of Directors and AI-Related Concerns
As readers know, issues surrounding the timeliness of notice of claim are among the most frequently litigated insurance coverage issues. Notice of claims delays occur for many reasons; sometimes, for example, the policyholder does not recognize a particular matter as constituting a claim within the meaning of the policy; sometimes there are process or communications issues that interfere with notice timeliness.
In a recent case and that touches on many of these issues, the Second Circuit, applying New York law, held that an earlier demand letter met the policy’s claim definition, and that the question of whether the provision of notice of claim on Monday morning just after the Saturday expiration of the policy was untimely must be remanded for further consideration by the district court. This case is a cautionary tale in many ways and provides an appropriate occasion to review of some of the first principles of claim notice. The Second Circuit’s August 13, 2024, Summary Order can be found here. (Hat Tip to Geoff Fehling of the Hunton Andrews Kurth law firm for his August 15, 2024 LinkedIn post about the decision, here).Continue Reading Thinking About Notice of Claim Timeliness
Here at The D&O Diary, we track new securities class action lawsuit filings to identify emerging litigation trends and to track filings that reflect existing trends. Every now and then, we spot new suits that reflect multiple different trends in a single complaint. A new securities lawsuit filed earlier this week against Chinese online retailer PDD Holdings (formerly known as Pinduoduo) is an example of one of these multi-trend suits. As discussed below, the lawsuit shows how privacy-related issues, cybersecurity issues, and geopolitical issues can translate into securities class action litigation. A copy of the August 13, 2024, complaint against PDD can be found here.Continue Reading Online Retailer Hit with Privacy, Security, and Forced Labor-Related Securities Suit
One of the more interesting recent litigation phenomena is that even though we are now well into the fifth year since the initial COVID outbreak in the U.S., COVID-related securities lawsuits continue to be filed. Indeed, in its recent survey of first half 2024 securities lawsuit filings, NERA noted COVID-related filings as one of the factors contributing to the volume of securities suit filing in the year’s first half, and indeed noted that COVID-related suit filings YTD were on pace to exceed the number COVID-related suit filings during the full year 2023. In the latest example of these securities suit filing trends, earlier this week, a plaintiff shareholder filed a COVID-related suit against cloud computing products company Extreme Networks, based on allegations that the company had misrepresented the long-term effects of COVID-related supply chain disruption on the company’s sales backlog. A copy of the August 13, 2024, complaint can be found here.Continue Reading Extreme Networks Hit with COVID-Related Securities Suit
In a significant number of the many SPAC-related lawsuits that have been filed in recent years, SPAC investors allege that executives at the previously private target company into which the SPAC merged made pre-merger misrepresentations about the target company’s operations or prospects. In an interesting decision in a securities suit involving Lucid Motors and that has a great deal of potential significance for many of these SPAC-related suits, the Ninth Circuit has held that the SPAC investors, who were neither purchasers nor sellers of the stock of the target company, lack standing to pursue their claims against Lucid Motors for alleged pre-merger misrepresentations. The Ninth Circuit’s August 8, 2024, opinion in the Lucid Motors case can be found here.Continue Reading 9th Circ.: SPAC Investors Lack Standing to Sue Over Merger Target Company’s Misrepresentations