California

Subscribe to California

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Cyan decision, corporate defendants faced the risk of wasteful and duplicative federal and state court securities litigation. In order to address this concern, corporate reformers suggested that companies should adopt provisions in their corporate charters designating an exclusive federal forum for securities litigation. The Delaware Supreme Court upheld the facial validity under Delaware law of federal forum provisions in the Sciabacucchi decision, but the question remained whether the courts in other jurisdictions would enforce the provisions. A number of courts in California and New York did subsequently uphold the provisions, but these were all trial court rulings.

Now, in an important legal development, a California intermediate appellate court has upheld the enforcement of the provisions, the first appellate decision on the issue outside Delaware. The California appellate court’s ruling in the Restoration Robotics case could represent a significant milestone in the development of post-Cyan litigation. A copy of the California appellate court’s April 28, 2022 decision can be found here. An April 29, 2022 memo from the Latham & Watkins law firm about the appellate court’s decision can be found here.
Continue Reading California Appellate Court Upholds and Enforces Federal Forum Provision

Many fledgling companies aspire toward completing an IPO. Some succeed, but many others do not. Occasionally when a company falls short of its IPO plan, litigation results, in the form of a “failure to launch” claim. A recent example involving a California-based cannabis company illustrates how these kinds of claims can arise. As discussed below, these possibility for these kinds of claims has insurance implications.
Continue Reading Cannabis Company Hit with “Failure to Launch” Claim

Last summer, when California adopted a new law requiring corporations based in the state to add board members from “underrepresented communities,” it modeled the statute on the board gender diversity statute the state had enacted two years before. The constitutionality of the board gender diversity law itself had been challenged in a federal court lawsuit, but the court hearing the suit had dismissed it based on the named plaintiff’s lack of standing. However, in a June 21, 2021 opinion (here), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, finding that the claimant had sufficient standing to pursue the claim. The appellate court’s action has implications both for the board gender diversity statute and the more recently adopted board racial diversity statute, which has also been challenged in court.
Continue Reading 9th Circ. Revives Legal Challenge to California Board Gender Diversity Statute

In 2018, California passed a law mandating gender diversity on the boards of directors of companies headquartered in California. The legislation known as SB 826 served as the model for the separate board racial diversity legislation that California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law at the end of September. The California Partners Project, a group co-founded by California First Lady Jennifer Siebel Newsom, recently published its first progress report on the growth in women’s representation on corporate boards for publicly traded companies headquartered in California since the enactment of SB 826. As the report shows, there has been a significant increase in the number of women on the boards of California headquartered companies. A copy of the report can be found here. An October 15, 2020 post on the Cooley law firm’s PubCo blog about the report can be found here.
Continue Reading Progress Report on California Public Company Board Gender Diversity Requirements

As I have noted in prior posts, one of the follow-on effects of the recent racial justice movement has been increased scrutiny of racial diversity within corporate management, and in particular on corporate boards. The boards of several publicly traded companies have been hit with shareholder derivative lawsuits alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to include African-American individuals on the boards, while at the same time the companies were touting their diversity and inclusion efforts.

In addition to the recent litigation, efforts to advance board racial diversity have included legislation. Earlier this year, the California legislature passed a bill mandating the inclusion on boards of California headquartered companies of representatives of “underrepresented communities.” On September 30, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law. As discussed below, even though the law has only been in place for a few days, a lawsuit challenging the bill has already been filed.
Continue Reading California Board of Directors Diversity Bill Signed Into Law, Challenged by Lawsuit

After the Delaware Supreme Court’s March 2020 decision in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi upholding the facial validity of corporate charter provisions designating federal court as the forum for Securities Act liability claims, several questions remained. Among the questions is whether others’ states courts will recognize and enforce federal forum provisions in Delaware corporations’ charters. This issue has been teed up for decision in a Section 11 lawsuit pending in San Mateo County court in California, in a case involving Dropbox. Dropbox has filed a motion urging the California state court to dismiss the action, in reliance on the federal forum provision in its corporate charter.

As discussed Alison Frankel’s July 13 post on her On the Case blog (here), a group of six ex-judges from Delaware has now entered an amicus brief on the issue in the case, urging the California court to recognize Delaware legal authority and enforce the federal forum provision in Dropbox’s charter. The Dropbox case, according to Frankel, is “shaping up as an early test of the application of the [Sciabacucchi decision] that forum selection clauses requiring shareholders to litigate Securities Act claims in federal court are facially valid because they concern the corporation’s internal affairs.”…
Continue Reading California Court to Address Enforceability of Delaware Corporation’s Federal Forum Provision

Regular readers know that among the recurring themes on this site are concerns about problems with the application of notice rules to preclude insurance for claims that would otherwise be covered under the policy. These problems are, in my view, particularly abrupt where a claims is made during one policy period and the notice is provided during the policy period of a subsequent renewal policy issued by the same insurer. I have argued that continuity of coverage between the two policies and with the same insurer ought to be taken into consideration and that coverage should be denied only if the insurer can show that the late notice of claim during the renewal period prejudiced the insurer’s interests. In a recent appeal, the Ninth Circuit rejected this continuity of coverage argument. The appellate court’s opinion, though brief, raises a number of interesting points, as discussed below.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rejects Continuity of Coverage as Response to Late Notice of Claim

On my beat here at The D&O Diary, I cover the liabilities of corporate directors and officers. One objection I frequently hear is that I focus too much public companies and not enough on private companies. The reason I write about public company issues more than private company concerns is that the public company world usually is more eventful. However, every now and then, something comes up involving a privately-held company that reminds all of us that plenty happens in the private company D&O world, too. The most recent example is the shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit filed last week against executives of the electronic cigarette company, Juul Labs. As discussed below, this new lawsuit highlights the exposures that private company directors and officers can face and underscores the fact that even private companies can get hit with shareholder class action lawsuits.
Continue Reading Private Company Directors and Officers Hit with Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit

John M. Orr
Jully Y. Rojas

As many readers undoubtedly are aware, California’s governor recently signed into law legislation that would re-classify app-based workers as “employees” rather than as “independent contractors. As discussed below in a guest post written by John M. Orr and Jully Y. Rojas, these recent changes in California law could have national significance. The changes could have significant Employment Practices Liability Insurance implications as well. John is a Director in Willis Towers Watson’s FINEX (Financial, Executive & Professional Risk) division. Jully is a member of FINEX’s Claims & Legal Group. Both are resident in the firm’s San Francisco office. The authors wish to thank Talene Carter, Willis Towers Watson’s Employment Practices Liability product leader, for her insights and guidance. A version of this article previously appeared on the Willis Towers Watson site. I would like to thank John and Jully 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 in topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is John and Jully’s article.…
Continue Reading Guest Post: Classifying Gig Economy Workers under Changing California Law

Under the so-called “notice-prejudice Rule” applicable in some jurisdictions, insurers can deny coverage for claims based on the policyholder’s late provision of notice of claim only in the event that the late notice materially prejudiced the insurer. In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court, ruling on questions certified to the Court from the Ninth Circuit, held that the notice-prejudice rule represents a “fundamental public policy” under California law potentially sufficient to override the choice of law provision in the parties’ insurance contract. The Court also held that the notice-prejudice rule also applies to the consent to incur expense provisions in first-party insurance policies. As discussed below, there are a number of interesting aspects to the court’s ruling. The California Supreme Court’s August 29, 2019 decision in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company can be found here.
…
Continue Reading Cal. Sup. Ct.: Notice-Prejudice Rule Represents a Fundamental Public Policy