John Cheffers

One of the key considerations related securities class action litigation risk is company size as measured by market capitalization. In the following guest post, John Cheffers details this relation between company size and securities class action litigation risk. John is Associate Counsel and Director of Research for Watchdog Research. I would like to thank John 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 John’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: Analyzing Securities Class Actions by Size

On April 12, 2021, when John Coates, the acting director of the SEC Division of Corporate Finance, and Paul Munter, the SEC’s acting chief accountant, issued a statement noting their concerns about the way that SPACs were accounting for warrants issued in connection with SPAC IPOs, they also noted that some entities may need to reclassify the warrants from equity to liabilities, and that the change in accounting treatment might require some entities to restate prior financial statements. As it has turned out, many SPACs have in fact reclassified their warrants and many have in fact restated their financials, as discussed below. In at least one case, discussed in earlier post on this site (here), a SPAC-acquired company that restated its financial based on the warrant accounting issue has been hit with a securities class action lawsuit – which raises the question whether other restatements by other SPACs and de-SPACs will trigger further securities class action litigation.

 

That is the question asked in a June 22, 2021 Law360 article by Elaine Harwood, Steven McBridge and Laura Simmons of Cornerstone Research entitled “Will SPAC Restatement Wave Trigger Shareholder Litigation?” (here). As discussed below, the authors’ article addresses several interesting and important questions about the warrant accounting issue and the possibility for further litigation. Continue Reading Will SPAC Warrant Accounting Restatements Result in Further Securities Class Action Litigation?

Last summer, when California adopted a new law requiring corporations based in the state to add board members from “underrepresented communities,” it modeled the statute on the board gender diversity statute the state had enacted two years before. The constitutionality of the board gender diversity law itself had been challenged in a federal court lawsuit, but the court hearing the suit had dismissed it based on the named plaintiff’s lack of standing. However, in a June 21, 2021 opinion (here), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, finding that the claimant had sufficient standing to pursue the claim. The appellate court’s action has implications both for the board gender diversity statute and the more recently adopted board racial diversity statute, which has also been challenged in court. Continue Reading 9th Circ. Revives Legal Challenge to California Board Gender Diversity Statute

When the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari to take up class certification questions raised in the long-running Goldman Sachs securities class action lawsuit, some commentators thought the case might give the Court the opportunity to reconsider fundamental issues about the presumption of reliance under the “fraud on the market” theory in connection with class certification in securities suits. However, as the case has turned out, the Court’s consideration of the case has not produced any fundamental recasting of any key issues; instead, the Court on June 21, 2021 issued a narrow decision that the majority opinion itself acknowledged, with respect to the most significant substantive part of the Court’s opinion, will not be “outcome determinative” in many cases. The Court’s June 21, 2021 decision can be found here. Continue Reading Supreme Court Vacates Class Certification in Goldman Sachs Securities Suit on Narrow Grounds

We are now well into the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, yet at this late date the COVID-19-related securities class action lawsuits continue to come in. In the latest example, Ocugen, a U.S.-based gene therapy development company that hoped to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, was hit with a securities class action law after a setback in its regulatory approval efforts. A copy of the plaintiff’s June 17, 2021 complaint against Ocugen can be found here. Continue Reading Biopharma Company Hit with COVID-19-Related Securities Suit

David Kaplan
Hani Farah

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 here, could represent a significant development in the evolution of cybersecurity and privacy-related securities litigation. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit in Part Reverses Dismissal of the Google+ User Data Securities Lawsuit

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. Continue Reading Title Insurance Company Settles SEC Cybersecurity Disclosure-Related Charges

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 here and the opinion in the derivative suit can be found here. Continue Reading Marriott Data Breach-Related Securities and Derivative Suits Both Dismissed

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. Continue Reading Cybersecurity Insurance Did NOT Cause the Ransomware Plague