
In my recent wrap-up of the top D&O stories of 2022, I noted that one of last year’s key topics was the quantity of litigation involving special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). It now appears that this trend is continuing into the new year. Late last week, a plaintiff shareholder filed a SPAC-related securities suit against battery development company Enovix, alleging that the company had misrepresented its manufacturing capabilities. A copy of the January 6, 2023, complaint against the company can be found here.Continue Reading Battery Co. Hit with SPAC-Related Securities Suit
As 2022 came to an end, many SPAC sponsors and executives, concerned about the possible onset on January 1, 2023, of an excise tax on amounts to be returned to investors, moved to liquidate their SPACs. As discussed further below, concerns about the possible applicability of the tax have now been alleviated, but given the general marketplace conditions for SPAC merger transactions, it seems likely that there will be further SPAC liquidations ahead in the new year. The possibility of a SPAC liquidation raises a number of considerations, including also important considerations with respect to D&O insurance.



Businesses these days face a wide variety of headwinds – rising interest rates, economic inflation, supply chain and labor supply disruptions, war in Ukraine, even continued disruptions from COVID – that are interfering with business operations and affecting financial performance. In some instances, these macroeconomic factors are translating into securities litigation. In the latest example of this phenomenon, a plaintiff shareholder has sued video display systems company Daktronics following the company’s announcement that supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, and shutdowns in China caused a decline in the company’s sales, which led to a later announcement of a “substantial doubt” of the company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The December 21, 2022, complaint can be found
Since the initial coronavirus outbreak in the U.S. in March 2020, plaintiffs’ lawyers have filed a host of securities class action lawsuits against companies raising a variety of COVID-19-related allegations. Many of these cases have faced significant hurdles at the initial pleading stage, and in a number of cases the dismissal motions have been granted. The one categorical exception to these dismissal motion generalizations seems to be cases involving vaccine development companies. Two rulings in the past week seem to corroborate both of these observations. First, in a December 9, 2022 ruling in the securities suit pending against the diagnostic testing company Talis Biomedical, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss (albeit with leave to amend). However, in a December 12, 2022 ruling in the securities case against the vaccine development company Novavax, the court denied the defendants’ dismissal motion in significant part. The rulings in these two cases are discussed below.
In recent posts on this site (for example,
At this point late in the year, it is looking increasingly likely that 2022 will be a down year in terms of the number of securities class action lawsuit filings relative both to recent years and even relative to long term historical norms. However, an important (and arguably somewhat surprising) part of the securities suits that were filed this year is the significant number of COVID-related securities suits filed this year. I say “surprising” because it seems unexpected well into the third year that plaintiffs’ lawyers would be continuing to file these suits. In the latest example of these kinds of suits, earlier this week a plaintiff shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company Veru, Inc. related to the company’s disclosures concerning its efforts to develop a COVID-related therapy drug. A copy of the December 5, 2022 complaint filed against Veru can be found