A recent Ninth Circuit decision reviving securities claims against a consumer products company and its executives highlights disclosure-related risks tied to consumer products companies’ distribution and execution capabilities that may warrant D&O underwriter consideration, particularly in light of recently revived IPO activity involving consumer products and services companies. Continue Reading 9th Circ. Revives Securities Suit Against Consumer Products Company
Choice of law considerations in litigation can sometimes be outcome determinative. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams takes a look at a distinctive statutory defense that may be available to derivative litigation defendants when Massachusetts law applies and considers the D&O insurance underwriting implications. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Sarah’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Massachusetts as a Safe Harbor from Derivative Suits
Is the SEC staff about to issue guidelines specifying that the safe harbor for forward looking statements does not apply to SPAC merger transactions? An April 28, 2020 exclusive report on Reuters (here) says that the SEC is considering taking the step. If the agency were to issue guidance restricting the availability of the safe harbor for SPACs, it could significantly restrict SPAC’s use of target company projections in advance of de-SPAC mergers, and even further slow the already cooling SPAC market. The SEC’s possible action is discussed further in an April 29, 2021 post on the Cooley law firms PubCo blog, here.
Continue Reading Are SEC Guidelines on SPAC Projections Ahead?
If things these days for the rest of you are the way they are for me, then all of you are basically finding out that SPACs are taking over your life. All SPACs, all the time. Wall to wall SPACs. At one level, this development should come as no surprise, as the sheer volume of SPAC activity is nothing short of astonishing. According to SPACInsider (here), since January 1, 2020, there have been a total of 554 SPAC IPOs completed – 308 in the three and a half months of 2021 alone. A further 261 SPAC IPO Registrations are currently pending. A staggering 435 post-IPO SPACs are currently in the process of trying to identify merger partners. Along with this wave of financial activity has come an accompanying flow of SPAC-related news and information. I have identified below just a few of the many SPAC-related items that crossed my desk in the last week; the selected items underscore the opportunities and risks involved in the SPAC-crazy world that we all now inhabit. And as also noted below, there could be some hints of a slowdown as well.
Continue Reading All SPACs, All the Time
Readers of this blog well know that in recent years there has been unprecedented levels of securities class action litigation activity, and that even in the midst of the current global health crisis plaintiffs’ lawyers have filed what one law firm has characterized as a “wave” of COVID-19-related securities litigation. The heightened pace of securities filings over the last several years has already triggered calls for another round of securities litigation reform. Now, organizations representing business interests have filed a petition with the SEC seeking to have the agency implement a number of reforms to protect businesses from “unjustified COVID-19 lawsuits.”
Continue Reading Petition to SEC Seeks Protection for Companies from Pandemic-Related Securities Suits
One of the most important ways a company can try to avoid potential liability under the federal securities laws is to incorporate precautionary disclosure in its public statements and regulatory filings. However, in a June 23, 2015 decision in In re Harman International Industries Securities Litigation (here), the D.C. Circuit provided a reminder to companies on the importance of keeping their precautionary disclosures up-to-date.
In the following guest post, Bruce A. Ericson and Stacie Kinser of the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP law firm take a detailed look at the D.C. Circuit’s recent opinion and consider the decision’s practical implications for companies’ precautionary disclosures. Ericson is a partner and Kinser is an associate at the Pillsbury law firm. Ericson is also Managing Partner of Pillsbury’s San Francisco Office, and Co-Head of Pillsbury’s Securities Litigation and Enforcement Team. A version of this article previously was published as a Pillsbury client alert and on Law 360.
I would like to thank Bruce and Stacie for their willingness to publish their article as a guest post on my site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Bruce and Stacie’s guest post.
********************************************
SEC Rule 10b-5 makes it unlawful to misstate a material fact (or omit to say something if the omission would render misleading what you do say) in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) created a safe harbor for statements that are forward-looking and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. In a recent decision, the D.C. Circuit revisited the standard for forward-looking statements, and placed special emphasis on the accompanying cautionary language, holding that statements which fail to account for historical facts cannot be meaningful. The opinion should serve as a timely reminder for companies to review and update their cautionary language.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Court of Appeals Warns Against Complacency in the PSLRA’s Safe Harbor