As has been well-documented, the United States in the middle of an “epidemic” involving the abuse of prescription and non-prescription opioids. The companies that manufacture and distribute these drugs have been hit with a “barrage” of lawsuits, filed by states, counties, and cities. Just last week, the state of Arizona filed a lawsuit against a drug company alleging that the company had fraudulently marketed a powerful opioid painkiller.  As this lawsuit wave has grown, shareholders and others have also climbed on the litigation bandwagon. In recent days, shareholders have filed a series of lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and distributors and their directors and officers. Just as the number of lawsuits filed by governmental entities seems likely to continue to grow, the number of investor suits against opioid drug companies seems likely to grow as well. Continue Reading Securities Suits Hit Opioid Drug Companies

Every year just after Labor Day, I take a step back and survey the most important current trends and developments in the world of Directors’ and Officers’ liability and D&O insurance. This year’s survey is set out below. Once again, there are a host of things worth watching in the world of D&O. Continue Reading What to Watch Now in the World of D&O

The D&O Diary’s European mission concluded this week with a final stop in Zurich, for meetings and an educational session. I already knew from prior visits that Zurich is a beautiful and charming city nestled in a spectacular setting at the northern end of Lake Zurich, surrounded by mountains, with a spectacular view of the Alps to the south. What I learned on this trip is that as reliably beautiful as Zurich is at any time, it is particularly stunning in late summer. Continue Reading Late Summer in Zurich

One issue with which courts dealing with insider trading cases have struggled is how to interpret and apply the personal benefit element of the liability standard. The personal benefit standard was in fact an important part of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Salman v. United States (as discussed here). Last week, the Second Circuit issued an important decision in the United States v. Martoma, in which the appellate court provided important additional perspective on the personal benefit test. In the following guest post, Brad S. Karp, Geoffrey R. Chepiga, Daniel J. Kramer, Lorin L. Reisner, Audra J. Soloway, and Richard C. Tarlowe of the Paul Weiss law firm take a look at the Second Circuit’s decision in the Martoma case and the appellate court’s discussion of the personal benefit test. I would like to thank the authors for their willingness to allow 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 site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ guest post. Continue Reading Guest Post: Divided Second Circuit Panel Overrules Prior Newman Insider Trading Decision

The D&O Diary’s European assignment continued last week with a stop for meetings in Warsaw, Poland, a city that absolutely confounded expectations. As befits a national capital of a country with a growing economy, Warsaw (in Polish, var-SHAW-vah) is a dynamic, energetic city, and full of history and interesting architecture. It also a surprisingly green city, with a huge, beautiful river, and vast parklands. Continue Reading A Visit to Warsaw

As litigation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) has proliferated in recent years, one of the recurring questions has been whether the defendants have insurance coverage for these kinds of claims. The insurance questions have in turn generated insurance coverage litigation, primarily with respect to the defendants’ CGL insurance policies, but also with respect to their D&O insurance policies as well. One closely watched recent case involved a D&O insurance dispute arising out of a TCPA claim against the Los Angeles Lakers. The district court had held that the Lakers’ D&O insurance policy did not cover the TCPA claim and the Lakers’ appealed. On August 23, 2017, in a decision that is sure to attract both attention and perhaps further skirmishing on these issues, a divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s holding, concluding that the invasion of privacy exclusion in the Lakers’ D&O insurance policy precluded coverage for the claim. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion can be found here.   Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms That Invasion of Privacy Exclusion Precludes D&O Insurance Coverage for TCPA Claim

Most informed observers know that IPO companies are more susceptible to securities class action litigation than are more seasoned companies. IPO companies usually have short operating histories and so their post-offering performance can be unpredictable and may include unexpected developments. When IPO companies stumble out of the blocks, they can attract a securities suit just a short time after their debut. An example of this occurred earlier this year when Snap, Inc. was hit with a securities suit two months after its IPO. A more recent example of this sequence involved Blue Apron Holdings, which this past week was hit with a securities suit just seven weeks after its IPO. These cases underscore the securities litigation vulnerability of IPO companies, which in turn has important implications. Continue Reading When IPO Companies Stumble Out of the Blocks

As courts have wrestled with standing issues in a variety of kinds of cases, the central question has been whether or not under the standard the U.S. Supreme Court enunciated in the Spokeo case the plaintiff alleged an injury that is sufficiently “concrete.” The Supreme Court remanded the Spokeo case itself to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings to determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations met the high court’s standard. On August 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in the remanded case that the injury the plaintiff alleged was sufficiently concrete to meet the Supreme Court’s test. This ruling could boost plaintiffs as they seek to resist defendants’ efforts for an early dismissal in cases in which plaintiffs are alleging a statutory violation, such as Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) cases, Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases, and Truth in Lending Act cases. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion can be found here.    Continue Reading Ninth Circuit’s Standing Ruling in Remanded Spokeo Case Could Boost Plaintiffs

In the wake of President Donald Trump’s June 1, 2017 announcement that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, one of the things I predicted was that the administration’s action likely would trigger a host of reactions on the state, national and international stage. Among other things, I conjectured that activists facing setbacks on the political stage might try to use judicial processes to advance their agenda. Though it lacks a direct connection to the U.S.’s actions on the Paris Climate Accords, a recent Australian lawsuit confirms my suggestion that activists are increasingly likely to try to use the courts as a way to promote their objectives. Continue Reading Shareholders File Climate Change Disclosure Lawsuit in Australian Court