In the latest in a series of lawsuits that recently have been filed against corporate directors based on board diversity issues, a Qualcomm shareholder has filed a derivative lawsuit against the company’s board, alleging that the company’s directors violated their duties to the company and shareholders by falling short of stated objectives on diversity and inclusion and by falling to include a single African-American either on the board or among the company’s senior officers. The lawsuit against Qualcomm follows similar lawsuit filed earlier this month against Oracle and Facebook. A copy of the July 17, 2020 complaint against the Qualcomm board can be found here. Continue Reading Qualcomm Hit with Board Racial Diversity Derivative Lawsuit

Early this spring, when I wrote the first installment in this series of updates about the impact of the coronavirus outbreak on the D&O liability and insurance arena, the general assumption was that the virus would spread for a couple of months during the spring and that by summertime things would be returning to normal. Very few people I know were predicting that when July actually did roll around that the number of confirmed cases, both nationally and globally, would be setting daily record highs. Even as recently as my most recent update last month, there were hopeful signs as the country re-opened for business. Unfortunately, the disease has proven to be more widely-distributed and the outbreak longer-lasting than earlier anticipated, and the expectations about the pandemic’s economic, social, and political impacts have also changed. All of these developments have implications for the pandemic’s impact on the D&O arena as well. In this latest update, I review the the pandemic’s D&O consequences and likely future impact. Continue Reading COVID-19 and D&O Insurance: July Update

In a recent post (here), I discussed the shareholder derivative suit filed against the board of directors of Oracle Corporation based on the alleged lack of racial diversity on the company’s board. Turns out that in addition to the lawsuit against Oracle’s board, the law firms that filed the Oracle lawsuit also have  filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against Facebook’s board alleging that the directors had violated their fiduciary duties by their inaction on diversity and inclusion issues; their tolerance of racially discriminatory practices both in its workforce and on its platform; and their failure to take action on hate speech on its platform. Along with the Oracle lawsuit, the new lawsuit against Facebook provides another example of how the current heightened focus on diversity and inclusion issues can translate into D&O claims. A copy of the complaint in the Facebook action can be found here. Continue Reading Facebook Board Hit with Derivative Lawsuit on Board Diversity and Other Race-Related Issues

There were a record number of securities class action lawsuits filed against tech companies in 2019, according to a new report from Cornerstone Research. The report, entitled “Tech Company Securities Class Action Filings and Settlements: 2015-Q1 2020 Review and Analysis” (here) also shows that the number of securities suit filings against tech companies increased each year compared to the prior year during the four-year period from 2016-2019. Cornerstone Research’s July 15, 2020 press release about the new report can be found here. Continue Reading Cornerstone Research: Tech Companies Hit with Record Number of Securities Suit in 2019

After the Delaware Supreme Court’s March 2020 decision in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi upholding the facial validity of corporate charter provisions designating federal court as the forum for Securities Act liability claims, several questions remained. Among the questions is whether others’ states courts will recognize and enforce federal forum provisions in Delaware corporations’ charters. This issue has been teed up for decision in a Section 11 lawsuit pending in San Mateo County court in California, in a case involving Dropbox. Dropbox has filed a motion urging the California state court to dismiss the action, in reliance on the federal forum provision in its corporate charter.

 

As discussed Alison Frankel’s July 13 post on her On the Case blog (here), a group of six ex-judges from Delaware has now entered an amicus brief on the issue in the case, urging the California court to recognize Delaware legal authority and enforce the federal forum provision in Dropbox’s charter. The Dropbox case, according to Frankel, is “shaping up as an early test of the application of the [Sciabacucchi decision] that forum selection clauses requiring shareholders to litigate Securities Act claims in federal court are facially valid because they concern the corporation’s internal affairs.” Continue Reading California Court to Address Enforceability of Delaware Corporation’s Federal Forum Provision

These days just about every public company merger transaction draws at least one merger objection lawsuit. These lawsuits formerly were filed in Delaware state court alleging violations of Delaware law, but since the 2016 Delaware Chancery Court decision in the Trulia case, in which the court expressed its distaste for this type of litigation, the lawsuits have been filed in federal court based on alleged violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These cases, through frequently filed, are rarely litigated. They typically are resolved by the defendants’ voluntary insertion of supplemental proxy disclosures and agreement to pay the plaintiff a “mootness” fee.

 

However, in a recent case a corporate defendant refused to update the proxy and succeeded in getting the case dismissed. As discussed in a recent law firm memo about the dismissal ruling, the “usual playbook” for these kinds of cases – making supplemental disclosures and paying a mootness fee – may not be the best approach, and the ruling itself may provide ammunition for companies that want to try an “alternative to the status quo.” Continue Reading Is There an Alternative to the Status Quo on Merger Objection Lawsuits?

Priya Cherian Huskins

Many readers undoubtedly have heard that, in lieu of D&O insurance, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk has personally agreed to protect the company’s board with an indemnification undertaking. In the following guest post, Priya Cherian Huskins discusses another situation in which a company official has agreed to indemnify the company’s directors in lieu of insurance, and discusses the issues and implications of this type of arrangement. Priya is a Senior Vice President and Partner at Woodruff Sawyer. A version of this article previously appeared in the D&O Notebook. I would like to thank Priya for allowing me to publish her 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 Priya’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: When a Wealthy Individual, Not D&O Insurance, Indemnifies Directors

As regular readers know, over the last few months, I have been closely following the rise of coronavirus outbreak-related securities class action lawsuits. To date, though the pandemic is a global health and economic phenomenon, the pandemic-related securities litigation activity has been limited to the United States. In the following guest post, Jason Symons, Persia Navidi, Claudia George, and Luke Roper of the HWL Ebsworth Lawyers take a look at the possibilities for COVID-19-related securities class action lawsuits in Australia. 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. Continue Reading Guest Post: The Potential for COVID-19-Related Securities Class Actions in Australia

In the latest coronavirus outbreak-related securities class action lawsuit to be filed, a plaintiff shareholder has filed a securities class action lawsuit against The GEO Group, a publicly traded private corrections facilities operator, alleging that the company misled investors about the effectiveness of its COVID-19 response. The complaint alleges that the company’s “inadequate” procedures subjected residents of the Company’s halfway houses to significant health risks. The company’s share price declined following news reports of a COVID-19 outbreak at one of the company’s facilities. A copy of the plaintiff’s complaint can be found here. Continue Reading Private Prison Firm Hit with COVID-19 Outbreak-Related Securities Suit

In an interesting decision that touches on a number of basic D&O insurance coverage issues, a federal district court judge applying Oklahoma law has ruled that a company’s management liability insurance policy does not provide coverage for legal expenses a former company executive incurred in a declaratory judgment action that had been filed by another company executive to determine the parties’ rights under a profit sharing agreement. The court concluded that there was no coverage because the individual seeking coverage had not been named as a defendant in the lawsuit by reason of his status as an insured person. Even more interestingly, the court concluded further that, even though the individual had been named as a defendant in the declaratory judgment lawsuit, he had not incurred “Defense Expenses” in the lawsuit, and therefore suffered no “Loss.” Western District of Oklahoma Judge David Russell’s June 30, 2020 redacted opinion in the insurance coverage action can be found here. Continue Reading No Coverage for Legal Expenses Incurred in Declaratory Judgment Action