There was a time only a few short years ago when the U.S. courts were the preferred forum for the litigation of securities class actions claims, arguably even claims whose relationship to the U.S. and to U.S. laws was slight. The U.S. courts role as preferred forum for securities suits was undermined by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, which underscored the fact that the U.S. securities laws apply only to domestic U.S. securities transactions. Since Morrison, a free-ranging inquiry has emerged to determine whether another country’s courts might emerge as the preferred forum for cross-border securities suits.
Among other countries, Canada has emerged as a candidate. However, a recent decision by Court of Appeal of Ontario examining the jurisdictional reach of Ontario’s securities laws expressly rejects the possibility that Ontario (where the bulk of Canadian securities suits are filed) “would become the default jurisdiction for issuers around the world.” The Court of Appeal’s July 11, 2018 decision in Yip v. HSBC Holdings can be found here. An August 9, 2018 memo from the Toronto-based Blake, Cassels & Graydon law firm can be found here. Continue Reading Ontario Court Rejects “Jurisdictional Overreach” for Canadian Securities Suits
I have long thought that it was only a matter of time before somebody filed a securities class action lawsuit based on disclosures made through social media. I knew we were going to see that lawsuit someday or other. Well, the day has arrived. On Friday, August 10, 2018, two Tesla investors each filed separate securities class action lawsuits against Tesla, Inc. and its Chairman, CEO, and largest shareholder, Elon Musk, based on Musk’s tweets last Tuesday that he was considering a take-private deal for which he had “secured” funding and that only shareholder approval was required for completion of the deal. As discussed below, there are a host of interesting things about the lawsuit and about the surrounding circumstances. 
As I have previously noted on this blog, merger objection litigation 
A recent coverage dispute involving a Nevada club’s losses resulting from its employees’ theft from the club’s customers’ credit cards raises interesting issues with implications for coverage questions for other kinds of losses for which policyholders are seeking crime policy coverage. In the recent Nevada club credit card fraud case, District of Nevada Judge 
For some time, I 
Perhaps because of my many years in the D&O insurance business, I am frequently approached by younger insurance agency and insurance brokerage professionals who are thinking about trying to concentrate on D&O insurance as product specialty. I generally encourage this idea, as I think that D&O insurance is an interesting industry space that still provides a lot of worthwhile opportunities. But the younger professionals who approach me are looking for more than just a few words of encouragement. They are also looking for advice and information. They are not always sure what in particular they are looking for when they approach me, but I know after many of these conversations one thing they usually need – that is, they need to know what to talk about when they talk about D&O. 
The insurer on the receiving end of the recent Sixth Circuit ruling that the a payment instruction fraud loss is covered under the Computer Fraud section of a Commercial Crime policy has filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. In its July 27, 2018 petition (
A coverage defense that insurers frequently raise is the assertion that the amount for which the insurance payment is sought represents uninsurable disgorgement. Beyond the more general question of whether or not disgorgements are or are not insurable is the more specific question of whether or not the amount for which coverage sought represents disgorgement. In an interesting July 30, 2018 opinion in a case involving the investment firm TIAA-CREF, the Delaware Supreme Court, applying New York law, rejected the firm’s insurer’s argument that the amount the firm paid in settlement of three underlying class action lawsuits represented uninsurable disgorgement. The Court expressly distinguished a series of three decisions in which New York courts had ruled that settlement amounts paid in settlement of regulatory enforcement actions represented uninsurable disgorgement. The Delaware Supreme Court’s July 30, 2018 order can be found 
On July 13, 2018, the Amsterdam Court of Appeals finally approved the €1.3 billion ($1.5 billion) settlement of a series of shareholder claims against Fortis in the wake of the global financial crisis. The settlement, which had first been announced in March 2016 by Ageas, Fortis’s successor in interest, faced a number of judicial objections and concerns, resulting in changes to the settlement as originally proposed. According to a July 27, 2018 Law 360 article by Jonathan Richman of the Proskauer law firm and Ianika Tzankova of Tilburg University (
It was perhaps inevitable after Facebook’s