IPO activity so far this year is well off the pace compared to this time a year ago. According to Renaissance Capital, as of last Friday, there have only been 16 IPOs in 2016, compared to 45 at this point last year, representing a decline of 71%. Indeed, when cybersecurity firm Secure Works Corp. completed its IPO last Thursday, it was the first tech IPO in over four months – and its debut was less than encouraging, as the offering priced below the targeted range. In an environment like this, companies whose strategies included an IPO may find that their plan to go public is simply no longer a realistic – or even desirable – option.
Among the many consequences that may befall a company whose IPO plans are sidetracked is the possibility that it may face claims from disappointed investors who assert that the company and its senior officials should be held liable to them for their losses arising from the company’s failure to launch. As discussed below, a recently filed lawsuit underscores the susceptibility of pre-IPO companies to these kinds of claims, which in turn highlights some important D&O insurance considerations for these kinds of companies. Continue Reading When Pre-IPO Companies Fail to Launch
In a 
The number of securities class action lawsuit filings raising accounting-related allegations rose in 2015, as did the number and value of accounting-related securities suit settlements, according to a new report from Cornerstone Research. In addition to the increase in the number of accounted-related lawsuit filings, the market capitalization losses associated with those new filings increased as well. The April 19, 2016 report, entitled “Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements: 2015 Review and Analysis,” can be found
Complicated coverage issues frequently arise in connection with D&O claims, and that is particularly true with respect to claims arising in bankruptcy. In the following guest post, Paul Ferrillo and Ronit Berkovich of the Weil, Gotshal & Manges law firm take a look at the key D&O insurance considerations that companies heading into bankruptcy should keep in mind. I would like to thank Paul and Ronit for their willingness 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 Paul and Ronit’s guest post.
One of the recurring battles in the continuing wars about whether or not a policyholder’s late provision of notice of claim precludes coverage is the question whether or not the “notice prejudice” rule applies. The notice prejudice rule specifies that the insurer can assert late notice as a coverage defense only if the delayed notice prejudiced the insurer. But if the notice prejudice rule applies, what constitutes “prejudice”? In an April 14, 2016 decision (
In its 
Largely as a result of the number of suits filed against smaller companies, the number of securities class action lawsuits filed in 2015 increased for the third year in a row, to the highest level since 2008, according to a new report from PwC. The April 2016 report, entitled “Small Companies, Big Targets: 2015 Securities Litigation Study,” can be found