Tag Archives: Mergers and Acquisitions Litigation

Delaware Supreme Court Trims Independent Directors’ Potential Liabilities in M&A Transactions

On May 14, 2015, in a landmark ruling with important implications for the potential liabilities of independent directors of companies involved in M&A transactions, the Delaware Supreme Court held that in order to state a claim for damages against directors of a company that has an exculpatory provision in its corporate charter, a plaintiff must … Continue Reading

Cornerstone Releases 2013 Study of M&A Lawsuit Settlements

Only two percent of M&A lawsuit that settled in 2013 involved a monetary payment to shareholders, according to the latest report on M&A lawsuit settlements from Cornerstone Research. The report, entitled “Settlements in Shareholder Litigation Involving Mergers and Acquisitions: Review of 2013 M&A Litigation” (here), is the second part of a two-part series on M&A … Continue Reading

Cornerstone Research Releases 2013 M&A Litigation Study

Mergers and acquisition activity continued to attract litigation in connection with virtually every transaction during 2013, and for the first time during 2013 the litigation filing rates for smaller transactions was as great as for larger transactions, according to a study recently released by Cornerstone Research. The study, entitled “Shareholder Litigation Involving Mergers and Acquisitions: … Continue Reading

Cornerstone Research Releases 2012 M&A Litigation Report

Plaintiff law firms continued to file lawsuits in connection with virtually every mergers and acquisitions transaction in 2012, according to an updated report from Cornerstone Research. The February 2013 report, which is entitled “Shareholder Litigation Involving Mergers and Acquistions” and which was authored by Robert M. Daines of Stanford Law School and Olga Koumrian of … Continue Reading

Takeover Litigation in 2012

Litigation related to M&A activity continued at an “extremely high rate” in 2012, according to the latest research update from Ohio State law professor Steven Davidoff and Notre Dame business professor Matthew Cain. According to the professors’ analysis, presented in their February 1, 2013 paper entitled “Takeover Litigation in 2012” (here), 91.7% of all merger … Continue Reading

Guest Post: Courts Reject Fee Awards in Non-Cash Class Settlements

In the following guest post, Kara Altenbaumer-Price (pictured) takes a look at two recent case decisions in which courts have declined attorneys’ fee awards in connection with non-cash class settlements. Kara is the Management & Professional Liability Counsel for insurance broker USI.    Many thanks to Kara for her willingness to publish her article here. … Continue Reading

The Other Kind of Merger-Related Litigation

Much has been written recently (including on this blog) about the growing prevalence of M&A related litigation. These lawsuits, typically launched by the target company shareholders, are filed shortly after a merger announcement and usually object to some aspect of the proposed merger or of the merger-related disclosure. But the merger objection lawsuit is not … Continue Reading

Takeover Litigation in 2011

In their paper “A Great Game: The Dynamics of State Competition and Litigation” (here), Ohio State Law Professor Steven Davidoff and Notre Dame Finance Professor Matthew Cain analyzed the M&A related litigation during the period 2005 to 2010. I discussed this article in a prior post, here. In a newly released February 2, 2012 paper … Continue Reading

All the M&A-Related Litigation Reference Material in One Convenient Location

During last week’s PLUS D&O Symposium, several of the panels discussed the problems surrounding the current onslaught of M&A-related litigation – and appropriately so, as the surging levels of M&A litigation is one of the most distinct and troubling current litigation trends. During the course of the discussion at the conference, several of the speakers … Continue Reading

Applying Morrison, Court Rejects Toyota Shareholders’ Japanese Law Securities Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank looked like the end of securities claims in U.S. courts on behalf so-called “f-cubed” claimants – that is, foreign shareholders of foreign-domiciled companies who bought their shares on foreign exchanges. In the aftermath of Morrison, these foreign claimants have pursued a number … Continue Reading