In its 2011 decision in the Janus Group case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that one who does not “make” a false statement cannot be held liable under section (b) of Rule 10b-5. In an enforcement action brought against him by the SEC, the defendant, Francis Lorenzo, argued that under the Janus case, he could not be held liable under the securities laws for forwarding a misleading email his boss had written because he did not “make” the false statement. The case ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 27, 2019, the Court found that even if Lorenzo could not be held liable under section (b) of the Rule because he did not “make” the statement, he could still be held liable under the scheme liability provisions in sections (a) and (c) of the Rule for disseminating the  document. The Court’s March 27, 2019 opinion in Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission can be found here. Continue Reading Supreme Court: Even One Who Did Not “Make” a False Statement May Still be Subject to Scheme Liability

Aggregate, average, and median securities class action lawsuit settlement amounts all rose in 2018, according to the latest report from Cornerstone Research. The 2018 total settlement amount of just over $5 billion dollars is substantially higher than the prior year total and in fact is the third-highest total in the past 10 years. The $5 billion total was driven by a small number of very large settlements. The Cornerstone Research report, which is entitled “Securities Class Action Settlements: 2018 Review and Analysis” can be found here. Cornerstone Research’s March 26, 2019 press release regarding the report can be found here. Continue Reading Cornerstone Research: Securities Suit Settlement Size Increased in 2018

Francis Kean

In the following guest post, Francis Kean, Executive Director FINEX Willis Towers Watson, take a look at an interesting and arguably surprising recent U.K. judicial decision in which a supermarket chain was held liable for the unauthorized Internet disclosure of its employees’ personal data. Francis has some interesting observations about the decision’s possible implications as well. A version of this article previously was published on the Willis Towers Watson Wire blog (here). I would like to thank Francis for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post. 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 Francis’s article: Continue Reading Guest Post: Claims Against Directors for Failure to Insure Against Cyber Risk Are More Likely Now

For many years, U.S.-listed companies based outside the U.S. have enjoyed a relatively advantageous pricing environment for their D&O insurance. Because many D&O insurance underwriters based outside the U.S. used a different pricing model than their U.S. counterparts, pricing for these foreign filers was in many instances lower than the pricing available to equivalent U.S.-based companies. In recent months, however, as a result of surging claims frequency and loss costs, foreign filers’ D&O insurance costs have jumped significantly. These developments and the claims-related factors causing the changes are detailed in an interesting March 20, 2019 article by Jane Njavro of Woodruff Sawyer entitled “Why D&O Costs Are Soaring for Foreign Filers” (here). The article includes detailed statistical analysis of the relevant U.S. securities class action litigation trends. Continue Reading The Deteriorating D&O Insurance Environment for Foreign U.S.-Listed Companies

There is no private right of action under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. However, regulatory enforcement actions under the FCPA by U.S. government authorities can and often does result in massive fines and penalties. When companies subject to FCPA enforcement are compelled to pay these penalties they often then hit with follow-on civil lawsuits arising out of or based on the anti-corruption enforcement action. In the most recent example of this anti-corruption enforcement and follow-on civil litigation sequence, earlier this week a plaintiff shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit filed against a U.S.-listed Russian telecom company that was the subject of both criminal and civil FCPA enforcement actions that recently resulted in the company’s agreement to pay substantial fines and penalties. Continue Reading Russian Telecom Company Hit with FCPA-Related Securities Suit

A short time ago, a storm of controversy briefly emerged after a Delaware court endorsed a firm’s adoption of a fee-shifting bylaw. The controversy quieted down after the Delaware legislature adopted a statutory provision prohibiting fee-shifting bylaws. The fee-shifting provision controversy could be back, albeit this time in a different state. A Nevada legislator has introduced a bill in the state senate that would explicitly allow Nevada corporations to adopt  provisions requiring fee-shifting in unsuccessful M&A litigation, as long as the deals were approved by a shareholder majority. University of Nevada Las Vegas Law School Professor Benjamin Edwards describes the legislation in a March 18, 2019 post on the Business Law Prof Blog (here). Continue Reading Proposed Nevada Legislation Introduces Fee-Shifting in Shareholder Litigation

In the latest twist in a long-running legal saga, on March 15, 2019, the FDIC announced that it had reached a $335 million settlement of the negligence action the agency had brought against PwC in connection with the accounting firm’s audit work for the defunct Colonial Bank. The curious thing about this settlement is that it represents only a little more half of the amount that a federal district court judge awarded the FDIC as damages in a July 2018 order in the case. The FDIC’s terse March 15, 2019 press release announcing the settlement can be found here. Continue Reading FDIC Settles PwC Colonial Bank Negligence Action for $335 Million

Even as the Brexit process unwinds in an ever more confounding pile of confusion, companies must continue to plan, operate, and report to their shareholders. U.S. securities regulators have already issued calls for reporting companies to provide greater details about the plans of management in the face of the risks and uncertainties surrounding the Brexit process. On March 15, 2019, William Hinman, the Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporate Finance, speaking at a securities regulation conference in London, offered a more detailed overview of the kind of disclosures he believes companies should be providing their shareholders about Brexit. Among other things, Hinman provided a useful checklist of questions companies should be asking themselves and about which companies should also be advising their investors. The text of Hinman’s March 15, 2019 speech can be found here. Continue Reading Brexit-Related Disclosure in a Time of Uncertainty and Risk

In a number of recent posts (most recently here), I have emphasized the importance of the wording of the securities exclusion in private company D&O insurance policies. A recent case out of Florida underscores the importance of the securities exclusion wording and illustrates how an unusual wording can lead to the preclusion of coverage for claims that might otherwise be covered. The decision also highlights the extent of the preclusionary effect from exclusions written on a very broad basis. Middle District of Florida Judge William Jung’s January 2, 2019 decision can be found here. A March 5, 2019 Law 360 article from the Jenner & Block firm about the decision can be found here. Continue Reading Securities Exclusion Bars Securities Transaction Claim Coverage

For everyone involved in the public company D&O arena, IPOs are a continuing source of interest and concern. An important part of thinking about IPO companies and their D&O risk profile in understanding what is going on in the IPO marketplace. On March 6, 2019, the Proskauer Rose law issued its annual analysis of the 2018 U.S. IPO activity. The report provides an interesting overview of the important characteristics of 2018 IPOs. The IPO report can be found here. The law firm’s March 6, 2019 press release about the report can be found here. Continue Reading A Closer Look at 2018 IPOs