Securities Litigation

Subscribe to Securities Litigation via RSS

paul weiss largeAmong the decisions that the Supreme Court issued this past Monday was its unanimous ruling in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning (here), in which the Court held that the ’34 Act’s  exclusive federal jurisdiction provisions do not preclude a claimant from pursuing state law securities claims in state court.  In the following guest post, attorneys from the Paul Weiss law firm take a look at the Court’s decision in the case and discuss its implications. I would like to thank the Paul Weiss attorneys 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 Paul Weiss attorneys’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Supreme Court Rejects Federal Jurisdiction over State Law Claims that Do Not Necessarily Raise Exchange Act Issues

As part of our beat here at The D&O Diaryfilings2016, we regularly monitor new lawsuit filings and try to identify trends and patterns. Over the years, we have noted and commented on this blog about many of the trends and patterns we have identified. More than once we have noted the incidence of director and officer liability litigation arising out of environmental issues. We have also noted that D&O litigation often follows after the announcement of FCPA investigations. As discussed below, there has been a flurry of recent filings involving environmental issues. I have also noted below an interesting variant on the FCPA follow-on civil lawsuit pattern.
Continue Reading Field Notes on Recent Corporate Suit Filing Trends

HBIIThis past year was an eventful one in the corporate and securities litigation arena, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Omnicare case, important rulings in the lower courts applying the Supreme Court’s Halliburton II decision, and a host of other important decision on critical securities law issues. In the following memorandum from the Haynes and Boone law firm, attorneys from the firm’s Securities and Shareholder Litigation group take a look at the important securities litigation developments during 2015. I would like to thank the firm and the group for their willingness to publish their memorandum on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to readers of this site. Please contact me directly if you are interested in submitting a guest post. Here is the Haynes and Boone firm’s memorandum.

*********************************************

Each year our Year in Review comments on significant securities-related decisions by the Supreme Court, federal appellate courts and district courts, notes key developments in SEC enforcement, and summarizes significant rulings in state law fiduciary litigation against directors and officers of public companies.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Year in Review: Securities Litigation

lifesciencesIn 2015, as was the case for several years prior, companies in the life sciences sector experienced a disproportionately greater number of securities class action lawsuits than companies in other industries. As I detailed in my analysis of 2015 securities class action lawsuit filings (here), 39 of the 191 securities class action lawsuits filed in 2015 involved companies in the life sciences sector, representing about one in five of all securities suit filings during the year. No other sector experienced anywhere near this number of securities class action lawsuit flings. For example, the sector with the second-most number of filings, software companies, had eleven filings during 2015, representing about 6% of securities suit filings during the year.

There are a number of reasons why there are more securities suit filings involving life sciences companies, as discussed below. The frequency and severity of lawsuits against companies in the life sciences sector have important D&O Insurance implications as well, as also discussed below.
Continue Reading Securities Suit Frequency Means Challenging D&O Insurance Market for Life Sciences Companies

sdnyRegular readers of this blog know that the filing of a shareholder lawsuit following the disclosure of a bribery investigation is a well-established phenomenon (as discussed, for example, here). Readers will also recall that in March 2015 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Omnicare decision (about which refer here), there was significant discussion whether the Court’s ruling that omitted facts could make a statement of opinion misleading and support liability under the securities laws could prove helpful to plaintiffs and even lead to more securities lawsuits premised on alleged omissions.

The trend lines for both of these issues came together in a recent dismissal motion ruling in the Southern District of New York in the securities class action lawsuit involving Och-Ziff Capital Management Group. In a February 17, 2016 opinion (here), Southern District of New York Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled that the defendants’ alleged failure to disclosure alleged but uncharged violations of the FCPA and sanctions laws was not actionable. However, he also held that the defendants’ failure to disclose the existence of the DoJ and SEC investigations was actionable, in light of the statements the company did make about its exposure to regulatory investigations. As discussed below, the Court’s conclusion that these alleged omissions were actionable was made with express reference to and reliance on the Supreme Court’s Omnicare decision.
Continue Reading Omissions Regarding Bribery Investigation Held Actionable

merckIn my recent review of the past year’s top D&O stories, I noted the current trend toward increased numbers of securities class action lawsuits involving smaller companies, and also towards smaller securities suit settlements. In the midst of this era of generally smaller cases and settlements has now come a huge settlement reminiscent of earlier time – perhaps because it involves a lawsuit that is itself a vestige of another era. On January 15, 2016, Merck announced that it had reached an $830 million settlement of the long-running Vioxx-related securities class action lawsuit. This case, whose extended procedural history included a trip all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to address statute of limitations issues, has been pending since November 2003. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval. Merck’s January 15, 2016 press release about the settlement can be found here.
Continue Reading Merck Agrees to Settle Long-Running Vioxx-Related Securities Class Action Lawsuit for $830 Million

gavel2The number of securities class action lawsuits filed in 2015 rose to the highest annual level in several years. As detailed below, a number of factors contributed to the increase in securities class action lawsuit filings during the year, including in particular the number of lawsuits filed against IPO companies (owing to the fact that IPO activity has been up in recent years), as well as the elevated number of lawsuits against foreign-domiciled companies.
Continue Reading U.S. Securities Class Action Lawsuit Filings in 2015 at Highest Level in Years

doleThe November 1, 2013 transaction in which David Murdock, Dole Food Company’s Chairman and CEO, acquired the Dole shares he did not already own has already been the subject of extensive litigation. Indeed, in 108-page August 27, 2015 post-trial opinion (here), Delaware Court of Chancery Vice Chancellor Travis Laster found that and Murdock and C. Michael Carter, Dole’s COO and General Counsel, had employed “fraud” to drive down the Dole’s share price to lower the amount Murdock paid in the deal. Laster entered a damages award against Murdock and Carter, jointly and severally, of $148.1 million, as discussed here.  On December 7, 2015, Murdock and Dole reached an agreement to pay the shareholders a total (including interest) of $113.5 million, with the remainder of the judgment amount to be paid to the plaintiffs in a separate appraisal action, as discussed here. As part of the settlement, the defendants gave up their right to appeal the Chancery Court rulings and judgment.

The recent settlement seemingly brought an end to the shareholder litigation over the November 2013 transaction. However, it now appears that there may be another round of litigation  yet to go.

On December 9, 2015, a plaintiff shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit in the federal court in Delaware, against Dole, Murdock, and Carter. A copy of the plaintiff’s complaint can be found here. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a class of Dole shareholders who sold their shares between January 2, 2013 and October 31, 2013. As might be expected, the complaint quotes extensively from Laster’s opinion. Notwithstanding the overlap between the Delaware Chancery suit and the new complaint, there are important differences between the cases. As discussed below, the securities class action complaint also presents a number of interesting issues and questions.
Continue Reading Dole Shareholders File Securities Suit Based on Executives’ Share Price Deflating Conduct Prior to Going Private Deal

ninthcircuitFor purposes of determining the scienter of a corporate entity defendant under the federal securities laws, a company’s executives’ knowledge generally is imputed to company. There is an exception to these general principles – the “adverse interest exception” – which provides that an executive’s knowledge will not be imputed to the company if the executive acted for his or her own purposes and contrary to the interests of the company. There is also an exception to the exception, which provides further that a rogue executive’s knowledge will nevertheless be imputed to the company when an innocent third-party has relied on the executive’s representations made with apparent authority.

In an October 23, 2015 opinion (here), the Ninth Circuit applied these principles to reverse the district court’s dismissal of the ChinaCast Education Corp. securities class action lawsuit, holding that the knowledge of the company’s CEO, who had embezzled funds and mislead investors through omissions and false statements, could be imputed to the company for purposes of innocent third-party investors’ claims.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: Embezzler Executive’s Knowledge Can Be Imputed to Company in Innocent Third Party-Filed Securities Suit

bofiIn the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress enacted or expanded a number of laws regarding the global financial system in order to combat money laundering and promote national security. As I have noted in prior post (most recently here), regulatory enforcement activity under these laws represents a potentially significant new area of potential D&O exposure. In addition, as a recently filed securities class action lawsuit shows, alleged violations of these financial controls not only can lead to regulatory action by federal regulators but may also lead to private civil litigation.
Continue Reading Money Laundering Allegations and Follow-On Securities Litigation