nystateDelaware’s courts have recently made it clear that the days where they would routinely approve disclosure-only settlements in merger objection lawsuits may be over (as discussed here). It now appears that other states also are no longer willing to approve these kinds of settlements. In a blistering October 23, 2015 opinion (here), New York (New York County) Supreme Court Judge Charles E. Ramos refused to approve the disclosure-only settlement proposed in the Allied Healthcare merger objection lawsuit, saying that courts’ willingness to approve these kinds of settlements “reflects poorly on the profession and on those courts that, from time to time, have approved these settlements.” Continue Reading New York Court Pans Merger Objection Lawsuit Disclosure-Only Settlement

nyulaw2On October 27, 2015, Cornerstone Research in conjunction with the New York University Pollock Center for Law & Business and the Leonard N. Stern School of Business to launch the Securities Enforcement Database (SEED). As described in the organizations’ joint October 27, 2015 press release (here), the database will track record and information relating to SEC enforcement actions filed against public companies. The SEED database, which can be found here, will facilitate the analysis of and reporting of SEC enforcement actions through regular updates of new filings and settlement information relating to ongoing enforcement action. Continue Reading New SEC Enforcement Action Database from NYU and Cornerstone Research

ninthcircuitFor purposes of determining the scienter of a corporate entity defendant under the federal securities laws, a company’s executives’ knowledge generally is imputed to company. There is an exception to these general principles – the “adverse interest exception” – which provides that an executive’s knowledge will not be imputed to the company if the executive acted for his or her own purposes and contrary to the interests of the company. There is also an exception to the exception, which provides further that a rogue executive’s knowledge will nevertheless be imputed to the company when an innocent third-party has relied on the executive’s representations made with apparent authority.

 

In an October 23, 2015 opinion (here), the Ninth Circuit applied these principles to reverse the district court’s dismissal of the ChinaCast Education Corp. securities class action lawsuit, holding that the knowledge of the company’s CEO, who had embezzled funds and mislead investors through omissions and false statements, could be imputed to the company for purposes of innocent third-party investors’ claims. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: Embezzler Executive’s Knowledge Can Be Imputed to Company in Innocent Third Party-Filed Securities Suit

seclogoAccording to the agency’s recently released enforcement activity statics, the SEC’s overall enforcement activity and the number of independent enforcement actions both increased in the fiscal year 2015 (which just ended on September 30) compared to prior years. More specifically, during fiscal 2015, the agency filed a record number of independent actions for violations of the federal securities laws. The agency’s enforcement statistics reflect a significant increase in the number of financial reporting and audit cases. The agency’s October 22, 2015 press release presenting its 2015 fiscal year enforcement statistics can be found here. Continue Reading SEC Files Record Number of Independent Enforcement Actions in Fiscal 2015

lawboks2When I started out as a law firm associate doing D&O insurance coverage work more than three decades ago, there was virtually no interpretive case law available. Legal research in connection with D&O insurance tended to be a meagre, frustrating process. Things have changed so much in the interim that now we can have two appellate decisions from two different federal circuit courts on D&O insurance issues in just a single day. On October 21, 2015, both the Second and Fifth Circuits issued D&O insurance coverage rulings, in both cases finding that the there was no coverage under the D&O insurance policies involved for the matters in dispute.

 

The Second Circuit’s October 21, 2015 summary order in Nomura Holding America, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company can be found here. The Fifth Circuit’s October 21, 2015 opinion in Martin Resource Management Corporation v. Axis Insurance Company can be found here. I discuss the two appellate decisions below. Continue Reading D&O Insurance: Two Federal Appellate Courts Issue Rulings Confirming Carriers’ Coverage Denials

floridaOne of the more interesting recent developments in the world of corporate and securities litigation has been the litigation reform bylaw movement. Among the types of bylaws with which various companies have experimented are the forum selection bylaws (now permitted by statute in Delaware) and fee-shifting bylaws (now prohibited in Delaware for stock corporations, as discussed here). Yet another type of litigation reform bylaw that has  attracted attention is the minimum stake to sue bylaw, which requires shareholder claimants to show that the represent a specified interest of the company’s ownership interest in order to be able to pursue a class or derivative claim. Continue Reading Lawsuit Challenging Minimum Stake to Sue Bylaw Dismissed

stanfordsealIn the world of corporate governance, there are a number of common presumptions about board structure and practices. However, according to a recent paper, many of these presumptions may in fact represent corporate governance “myths.” In their September 30, 2015 paper entitled “Seven Myths of Boards of Directors” (here) Stanford Business School Professor David Larcker and Resercher Brian Tayan examine several “commonly accepted beliefs about boards of directors that are not substantiated by empirical evidence.” Continue Reading The “Myth” of Outside Director Liability and the Critical Importance of D&O Insurance

bofiIn the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress enacted or expanded a number of laws regarding the global financial system in order to combat money laundering and promote national security. As I have noted in prior post (most recently here), regulatory enforcement activity under these laws represents a potentially significant new area of potential D&O exposure. In addition, as a recently filed securities class action lawsuit shows, alleged violations of these financial controls not only can lead to regulatory action by federal regulators but may also lead to private civil litigation. Continue Reading Money Laundering Allegations and Follow-On Securities Litigation

seclogoFrom time to time, the SEC reiterates its view of the critical gatekeeper role companies’ outside directors play in safeguarding investors’ interests. Nevertheless, it has been relatively rare for SEC to pursue enforcement actions against outside directors based on an alleged failure to fulfill that role. But while these actions are rare, the agency does periodically bring enforcement actions against directors whom the agency contends shirked their duties. Continue Reading SEC Enforcement Actions Against Outside Directors

del1Stating his belief that the merger objection litigation dynamic represents a “systemic” problem that has resulted in a “misshapen legal system,” Delaware Chancery Court Vice Chancellor Travis Laster rejected the proposed disclosure-only settlement of litigation that had been filed objecting to Hewlett-Packard’s $2.7 billion acquisition of Aruba Networks. In an October 9, 2015 settlement hearing in the case, Laster cited the “inadequacy of the representation” of plaintiffs’ counsel for the shareholder class as the basis for his rejection of the settlement, as well as for the outright dismissal of the case. Liz Hoffman’s October 10, 2015 Wall Street Journal article about Laster’s ruling can be found here. Continue Reading Game Over?: Del. Chancery Court Rejects Disclosure-Only Settlement in H-P/Aruba Networks Merger Objection Lawsuit