
In the following guest post, Nessim Mezrahi discusses the need for transparency in third-party litigation funding arrangements and judicial scrutiny on short-seller reports relied on by plaintiff securities class action attorneys. Nessim is cofounder and CEO of SAR, a securities class action data analytics and software company. A version of this article previously was published on Law360. I would like to thank Nessim 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 site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Nessim’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: Funder, Short-Seller Use Undermines Securities Class Actions
Securities class action lawsuits involving tech companies increased for the fourth consecutive year in 2019, according to the latest report from Cornerstone Research. The report, examining securities litigation activity against tech companies, supplements Cornerstone Research’s previously released 
In the following guest post, Peter A. Atkins, Marc S. Gerber, Kenton J. King, and Edward B. Micheletti of the Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom law firm weigh in on the long-running stockholders versus stakeholders debate. A version of this article previously was published as a Skadden client alert. I would like to thank the authors 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 the authors’ article.
In the following guest post, Umesh Pratapa takes a look at directors’ liability issues under Indian law, and also examines the protections that are available for directors as well. Umesh is a Consultant – Liability Insurance, in India. Umesh’s article was originally published in the July 2020 issue of “Director Today”, a monthly journal of the Institute of Directors (IOD), India. Reproduced with the kind permission of the publisher, Institute of Directors, India. I would like to thank Umesh 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 site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Umesh’s article.
A California-based vaccine development company has been hit with a coronavirus outbreak-related securities class action lawsuit, based on the company’s statements about its COVID-19 vaccine development efforts and about the company’s participation in a federal government vaccine development program. In addition, in a separate development, a different company has been hit with a coronavirus outbreak-related shareholder derivative lawsuit, based on the company’s statements concerning its ability to provide COVID-19 testing kits.
Having observed and commented on the D&O insurance industry for many years, I am accustomed to periodic proclamations from non-industry-based observers about how the D&O insurance industry ought to work, based on various social, behavioral, or economic notions. These periodic declarations usually start with a series of vexed observations that the D&O industry does or does not do things that economic or behavioral models suggest the industry should or should not do, and then the declarations move on to a series of proposed prescriptions that would mandate how the D&O insurance business ought to work, for the supposed greater good of all.
In an interesting development that could prefigure further climate change-related disclosure litigation, an Australian investor has filed a lawsuit against the Australian Federal Government and two government officials, on her own behalf and on behalf of over investors in Australian Government Bonds, for allegedly failing to disclose to investors the climate change risks attached to the sovereign bonds. According to an August 12, 2020 memo from the Allens law firm (
In the following guest post, Christopher Bannon of the Aronberg Goldgehn law firm takes a look at a recent ruling in which the court addressed the question of whether a lawsuit seeking the return of an administrative fee is a suit for “damages” within the meaning of the applicable insurance policy. A version of this article previously was published as an Aronberg Goldgehn client alert. I would like to thank Chris 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 site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Chris’s guest post.