Section 11

Subscribe to Section 11 via RSS

In its June 2023 decision in the Slack case, the United States Supreme Court held that, order to establish standing, Section 11 plaintiffs must plead and prove that the shares they purchased in a direct listing offering are traceable to the allegedly misleading registration statement. However, as I noted at the time, while the Court was clear that Section 11 plaintiffs must establish traceability, the Court had little to say about what is required to establish the tracing.

In a recent ruling in a securities lawsuit against Palantir Technologies, which went public in a direct listing, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Section 11 claim, after finding that the alternatives the plaintiffs proposed to try to establish tracing were insufficient. The practical implication of the Court’s decision is that the strict tracing requirements may, as an April 16, 2025, memo from the Paul Weiss law firm put it, “effectively insulate companies that go public through a direct listing from Section 11 liability.”Continue Reading High Bar to Establish Section 11 Standing for Direct Listing Purchasers

The IPO market has been in the doldrums since 2021, but there are promising signs that IPO activity could be on the rebound in 2024. Given the potential for the return of significant IPO activity, it is worth noting that IPO transactions entail certain risks, including in particular for the IPO companies’ private equity backers, as discussed in the following guest post written by Michelle Grimaldi, Assistant Vice President, Claims, Fair American Insurance and Reinsurance Company; Elan Kandel, Member, Bailey Cavalieri LLC; and James Talbert, Associate, Bailey Cavalieri LLC. 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.

***********************Continue Reading Guest Post: Looking Ahead: Risks Attendant to a Potential Rebound in the IPO Market for Private Equity

The U.S. Supreme Court – in a short, concise, unanimous opinion – has ruled that to assert Section 11 claims against Slack in connection with the company’s June 2019 direct listing, the plaintiff must plead and prove that he purchased shares pursuant to Slack’s allegedly misleading registration statement. Slack had offered both registered and unregistered shares in the direct listing. Even though the plaintiff had not alleged that the shares he purchased were registered shares, the Ninth Circuit had allowed the plaintiff’s claims to stand. The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s order and remanded the case to the district court. At a minimum, the Supreme Court’s ruling means Section 11 plaintiffs must plead that their shares are traceable to the offering. The practical implication of the Court’s ruling may be that the companies conducting direct listings cannot be sued under Section 11. A copy of the Court’s June 1, 2023, opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Even in Direct Listing, Section 11 Plaintiff Must Trace Shares to Registration Statement

Joseph Gross

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Slack case, the  high-profile securities law case the Court is considering this term. In the following guest post, Joseph Gross of the Wiley firm provides a detailed overview of the legal issues in the case and summarizes the parties’ oral arguments. I would like to thank Joe for allowing me to publish his 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 Joe’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Will the Supreme Court Cut Securities Plaintiffs Some Slack? 

Nessim Mezrahi
Stephen Sigrist

In the following guest post, Nessim Mezrahi and Stephen Sigrist take a look at a variety of economic and marketplace factors that they suggest may lead to securities litigation lawsuit filings in 2023, particularly with respect to IPO companies. Mezrahi is co-founder and CEO and Sigrist is Senior Vice President of Data Science at SAR LLC. A version of this article previously was published on Law360. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article on my 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.Continue Reading Guest Post: Securities Class Actions May Spur IPO Investigations in 2023

On December 13, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition of Slack Technologies to have the court take up the question of the plaintiff’s standing to pursue ’33 Act liability claims against the company. The standing question arises because the plaintiff bought his Slack shares in connection with the June 2019 transaction in which Slack went public through a direct listing rather than through a traditional IPO. Though the standing questions arises in the relatively narrow context of the company’s direct listing, the standing questions at issue potentially could affect ’33 Act liability claims in other contexts as well. A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s December 13, 2022 order in the Slack case can be found here.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Question of ’33 Act Standing in Slack Direct Listing Case

Securities class action litigation activity involving IPO companies recently has been a significant concern, for the companies themselves as well as for their insurers. In the following guest post, Stanford Law School Professor Michael Klausner and Jason Hegland, Stone Kalisa, and Sam Curry of Stanford Securities Litigation Analytics take a look at the data surrounding IPO-related securities litigation. 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.
Continue Reading Guest Post: IPO Litigation Risk

A third California state court has ruled that a provision specifying that federal courts are the exclusive forum for the resolution of ‘33 act liability actions is valid and enforceable. This latest decision — in a state court securities class action lawsuit pending against Dropbox — suggests that a broad consensus is emerging in California court to enforce federal forum provisions. But while the Dropbox decision is largely consistent with the prior California state court decisions enforcing FFP, there are certain features of the Dropbox decision that make it noteworthy and interesting in its own right. A copy of the December 4, 2020 decision in the Dropbox case can be found here. A December 8, 2020 memo from the Seyfarth Shaw law firm about the ruling can be found here.
Continue Reading Third California State Court Upholds Enforceability of Federal Forum Provision

A recent guest post on this site opined that because of the volume of Section 11 litigation being filed in New York state court, New York’s courts “will have a major role in shaping the standards applied in Securities Act litigation going forward.” If that is the case, then the recent New York appellate court ruling reversing a trial court’s dismissal motion denial in a state court Section 11 action could be significant. According to a December 4, 2020 Law360 article (here), the ruling represents the first time the New York appellate division has addressed the merits of a federal ’33 Act claim since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cyan. The New York appellate court’s December 3, 2020 ruling can be found here.
Continue Reading NY Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court’s Dismissal Denial in State Court Securities Suit

In reliance on the federal forum provision (FFP) in the company’s corporate charter, a California Superior Court judge has granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the state court ’33 Act liability action pending against Uber. The ruling represents the second occasion on which a California state court has dismissed a state court ’33 Act liability action in reliance on an FFP in the corporate defendant’s charter, providing further hope that the adoption of FFPs may help companies address the Cyan problem – that is, the possibility of having to face identical ’33 Act liability actions in both state and federal court. The California Superior Court’s November 16, 2020 order in the Uber case can be found here.
Continue Reading State Court Securities Suit Against Uber Dismissed Based on Federal Forum Provision