For a time a few years ago, litigation management bylaws were all the rage. Driven by concerns about multi-forum merger-related litigation, commentators proposed company adoption of forum selection bylaws for internal corporate disputes. The debate widened when reformers suggested that companies adopt fee-shifting bylaws. The debate subsided in 2015 when the Delaware legislature adopted legislation authorizing the adopting of bylaws designating Delaware’s courts as the preferred forum for disputes under Delaware, but prohibiting fee-shifting bylaws.
The topic of litigation management bylaws resurfaced in recent months in connection with the debate about plaintiffs lawyers’ resorting to state court (primarily in California) to assert securities class action claims, in reliance on the concurrent jurisdiction provisions under the Section 22 of the Securities Act of 1933. Concerns about this kind of litigation has in turn precipitated various self-help measures companies could adopt to try to avoid getting hauled into state court for these kinds of suits. Continue Reading Delaware Chancery Court Action Challenges Federal Forum Bylaws
In the third-largest securities class action settlement ever in Australia, QBE Insurance has agreed to settle the securities suit pending in the Federal Court of Australia and filed against the company on behalf of QBE investors related to the sharp share price decline the company experienced in December 2013. The amount of the settlement is A$ 132.5 million (US$ 103.5).The company admitted no liability in connection with the settlement. The settlement is subject to Court approval. A copy of QBE’s December 28, 2017 market statement regarding the settlement can be found 
Insurance policies are of course written documents, dependent upon standard conventions of grammar and usage in order to establish their meaning. A recent unpublished opinion from the Ninth Circuit wrestled with the grammar rules involved when an insurance application’s question and answer created a double negative. Even though a literal reading of the application question using the relevant grammar rules arguably establishes the applicant answered the question truthfully, a majority held that the overall context of the question established that the applicant did not answer the question truthfully, and therefore that the insurer was entitled to rescind the policy based on the application misrepresentation. The dissent disagreed, contending that in light of the application question’s actual wording, the applicant had completed the question truthfully, and therefore that the insurer was not entitled to rescission. The Ninth Circuit’s January 2, 2018 opinion in the case can be found 
In one of the largest U.S. securities class action lawsuit settlements ever, the Brazilian-based energy company Petrobras has agreed to settle the bribery and corruption-related securities class action lawsuit pending against the company in the Southern District of New York for $2.95 billion. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, resolves only the claims of Petrobras investors who purchased the company’s securities in the U.S.; it does not resolve the claims of investors who purchased Petrobras securities in Brazil. The settlement resolves the case just before the U.S. Supreme Court was to consider whether to take up a cert petition in which the defendants sought to have the high court address class certification issues in the case. The company’s January 3, 2017 press release describing the settlement can be found 
The world of directors’ and officers’ liability is always dynamic, but 2017 was a particularly eventful year in the D&O liability arena. The year’s many developments have significant implications for what may lie ahead in 2018 – and possibly for years to come. I have set out below the Top Ten D&O stories of 2017, with an eye to these future possibilities. 
More securities class action lawsuits were filed in 2017 than in any year since 2001, in significant part because of the substantial number of federal court merger objection lawsuit filings during the year. But even disregarding the merger suits and looking only at the traditional securities lawsuits, the number of lawsuit filings was at the highest level since at least 2004. While the elevated numbers of lawsuit filings is noteworthy, it is the litigation rate – that is, the number of securities suits relative to the number of public companies – that is most significant. According to my estimate, the litigation rate during 2017 was at all-time record levels. 
Even after the 
In the latest of what is beginning to look like a wave of ICO-related securities lawsuit filings, would-be investors who made pre-offering investments in Monkey Capital’s promised but uncompleted ICO have filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against the company and its principals, alleging that the company’s pre-offering sale of options to purchase coins or tokens in the offering represented the sale unregistered securities in violation of the federal securities laws. A copy of the plaintiffs’ December 19, 2017 complaint can be found 
As I have previously noted (most recently