In my review of SPAC-related litigation on this site, I have mostly focused on SPAC-related securities litigation. However, there have been other types of SPAC-related lawsuits filed, including SPAC-related breach of fiduciary duty direct actions filed in Delaware courts (as discussed for example here). On January 3, 2022, Delaware Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will entered an opinion in one of these direct action breach of fiduciary duty cases – the closely-watched MultiPlan action – denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss and holding that though Delaware courts “have not previously had an opportunity to consider the application of our law in the SPAC context,” well-established Delaware legal principles led the court “despite the novel issues presented” to conclude that the plaintiffs have pleaded “viable, non-exculpated claims against the SPAC’s controlling stockholder and directors.”
As discussed below, the court’s ruling is a landmark ruling addressing governance concerns relating to potential conflicts of interest between a SPAC’s sponsors and directors and officers and its public shareholders. A copy of the January 3, 2022 opinion can be found here. Continue Reading Del. Court Dismissal Denial Has Important SPAC-Related Litigation Implications
The Insured vs. Insured exclusion is one of the standard exclusions in D&O insurance policies (although these days at least in public company D&O insurance policies, the exclusion is framed as an Entity vs. Insured exclusion). Disputes often arise with respect to the Insured vs. Insured exclusion. In the following guest post, Ivan Rodriguez, Underwriting Lead with CelerityPro, Elan Kandel, Member, Bailey Cavalieri LLC and James Talbert, Associate, Bailey Cavalieri LLC, take a look at a situation that frequently results in Insured vs. Insured coverage disputes – that is, so-called “mixed” actions, in which the plaintiffs include both insured and uninsured persons. I would like to thank the authors for allowing 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 blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article. 
The directors’ and officers’ liability environment is always changing, but 2021 was a particularly eventful year, with important consequences for the D&O insurance marketplace. The past year’s many developments also have significant implications for what may lie ahead in 2022 – and possibly for years to come. I have set out below the Top Ten D&O Stories of 2021, with a focus on the future implications. Please note that on Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 11:00 AM EST, my colleague Marissa Streckfus and I will be conducting a free, hour-long webinar in which we will discuss The Top Ten D&O Stories of 2021. Registration for the webinar can be found 
The number of federal court securities class action lawsuits filed during 2021 declined significantly compared to the number filed in 2020, and the number of 2021 filings was sharply below the elevated number of securities suits filed each year during the period 2017-2019. The most significant factor in the 2021 drop-off was the decline in the number of federal court merger objection class action lawsuit filings during the year, although there were other factors at work as well. Though the number of filings in 2021 declined relative to the elevated number of annual filings during period 2017-2020, the number of 2021 filings was above longer-term historical annual filings levels prior to 2017, as discussed below. 
As I have noted on this site (most recently 
In an opinion written in unusually direct language, a federal district court has denied the motion to dismiss in a coronavirus-related securities class action lawsuit filed against a vaccine development company. However, the motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend as to the vaccine company’s major outside shareholder. The significant context of the pandemic itself and the swirl of media coverage surrounding it proved to be a significant factor in the court’s denial of the motion to dismiss as to the company defendants. The court’s December 22, 2021 opinion in the Vaxart securities litigation can be found 
In the latest securities class action lawsuit to be filed against a post-SPAC-merger electric vehicle company, a plaintiff shareholder has filed a securities suit against the EV company Arrival SA, following the company’s announcement in November 2021 of a slowdown in its production schedule and of the company’s need to raise additional capital. As discussed below, the new lawsuit against Arrival has several characteristics in common with other SPAC-related securities suits that have been filed this year. A copy of the complaint that was filed against Arrival on December 22, 2021 can be found 
As I monitored the coronavirus-related securities litigation as it has been filed since March 2020, I had observed that the cases generally fell into one of three categories: cases involving companies that had experienced a coronavirus outbreak in their facilities; companies that had claimed that they would be able to profit from the pandemic; and companies whose operations or finances were disrupted by the pandemic. Over the last several weeks, I have observed a new coronavirus-related variant, a fourth category of cases involving companies that had prospered at the outset because of pandemic restrictions, but whose fortunes ebbed as pandemic restrictions eased. Now, two more of these “fourth category” variant cases have been filed, one involving Docusign and one involving Chegg, as detailed below.