One trend I have noted on this site in recent years is the proclivity of plaintiffs’ lawyers to file securities class action lawsuits or shareholder derivative lawsuits in the wake of antitrust regulatory or enforcement actions. These kinds of lawsuits tend to cluster in specific industries as antitrust enforcement authorities concentrate on alleged anticompetitive behavior in those sectors. One industry that recently was the focus of both regulatory action and securities litigation is the poultry production industry.
As discussed here, beginning in 2016 companies in this industry that found themselves the subject of antitrust enforcement actions were hit with follow on securities litigation. In connection with one of those suits involving poultry producer Pilgrim’s Pride the court recently granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Both the lawsuit and the court’s ruling are significant given the current Presidential administration’s ramped-up antitrust enforcement approach and the possibility for resulting follow-on D&O claims. The Court’s March 8, 2022 order in the Pilgrim’s Pride case can be found here. Continue Reading Antitrust Enforcement Follow-On Securities Suit Against Pilgrim’s Pride Dismissed
As I noted in a prior post (
Within the D&O marketplace, the SPAC and De-SPAC space has been difficult over the last 18 to 24 months. Pricing for D&O insurance for SPACs and De-SPACs has been extraordinarily high. In addition, the insurers are only willing to provide coverage at all with extraordinarily high self-insured retentions (SIRs). These difficult marketplace conditions have caused many buyers to consider possible insurance alternatives, such as Side-A only insurance programs. The high SIRs also raise practical questions about how the elevated retentions will be funded in the event of the claim. The possible alternative insurance structures and the questions about funding the elevated retentions in turn raise a host of complicated issues about indemnification and advancement, particularly concerning the obligations of the go-forward De-SPAC company to provide indemnification and advancement for post-merger claims against former directors and officers of the SPAC.

Editor’s Note: This edition of Sunday Arts reproduces here the text of a blog post
On March 9, 2022, the SEC finally released its long-anticipated updated cybersecurity disclosure requirements. The proposed rules, inclusive of specifications both for incident reporting and for risk management and governance disclosure, were adopted by a 3-1 vote and are now subject to a public reporting period. The new rules, which the Commission’s press release says are “designed to better inform investors about a registrant’s risk management, strategy, and governance and to provide timely notification of material cybersecurity incidents,” underscore the Commission’s emphasis on cybersecurity reporting and disclosure issues.
In its latest annual report, ISS Securities Class Action Services reports that in 2021 the Robbins Geller law firm, for the second year in a row, secured the highest dollar value in securities class action lawsuit settlements during the year and also was involved in the highest number of separate settlements. The report, which includes both U.S. and Canadian settlements, ranks the top 50 plaintiffs law firms by total dollar value recoveries and the Top Ten plaintiffs law firms ranked by number of settlements achieved. The March 4, 2022 ISS SCAS report, which is entitled “The Top 50 of 2021” and was co-authored by ISS SCAS’s Jeff Lubitz and Lloyd Flores, can be found
In the following guest post, Ed Whitworth, the Head of Directors and Officers Liability at Inigo, and Yera Patel, Head of Casualty & Financial Lines Claims and Analytics for Inigo, summarize the results of a recent survey Inigo conducted of U.S. securities litigation defense counsel.. The original of the survey summary previously was published on Inigo’s blog,
As readers of this blog know, the various board diversity lawsuits that the plaintiffs’ lawyers filed in late 2020 and early 2021 have uniformly fared poorly in the courts. In the latest dismissal motion ruling in one of these suits, the court in the board diversity suit filed against the directors of Cisco Systems has granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, albeit without prejudice. The court’s ruling in the Cisco Systems board diversity suit is noteworthy because the court addressed the merits of the plaintiff’s Section 14(a) claims. A copy of the court’s March 1, 2022 dismissal order can be found
As I have noted in numerous posts on this site (most recently