Standing

Subscribe to Standing via RSS
Sarah Abrams

In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, takes a look at the recent dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a failed merger, and considers the implications for the dismissal, particularly with respect to securities suits involving SPAC transactions. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her article 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: Standing, Scienter, and SPAC Exposure

Two decisions last week by the New York Court of Appeals – New York’s highest court – may represent the end of plaintiffs’ lawyers’ recent attempts to turn the state’s courts into a focal point for derivative litigation involving non-U.S. companies. Both of the Court’s decisions affirmed the dismissals of derivative suits that had been filed in New York state court against directors of non-U.S. companies — Barclays and Bayer, respectively — asserting claims against them under their respective home countries’ laws. A copy of the court’s May 20, decision in the Barclays case can be found here. A copy of the court’s May 20 decision in the Bayer case can be found here.Continue Reading NY’s Highest Court Affirms Dismissals of Derivative Suits Involving Non-US Companies

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

A D&O insurance policy provides its most important protection in the bankruptcy context, when the company is unable to indemnify its executives for claims arising out of their service as directors or officers. But because of the competing interests in bankruptcy – including the interests of the bankruptcy estate itself – bankruptcy can also be a complicated insurance coverage context. A Fourth Circuit decision, in which it held that two bankruptcy trustees lacked standing to sue a bankrupt company’s D&O insurer in a declaratory judgment action, highlights important principles governing D&O insurance in the bankruptcy context.Continue Reading 4th Circ.: Bankruptcy Trustees Lack Standing to Sue D&O Insurer

In a significant number of the many SPAC-related lawsuits that have been filed in recent years, SPAC investors allege that executives at the previously private target company into which the SPAC merged made pre-merger misrepresentations about the target company’s operations or prospects. In an interesting decision in a securities suit involving Lucid Motors and that has a great deal of potential significance for many of these SPAC-related suits, the Ninth Circuit has held that the SPAC investors, who were neither purchasers nor sellers of the stock of the target company, lack standing to pursue their claims against Lucid Motors for alleged pre-merger misrepresentations. The Ninth Circuit’s August 8, 2024, opinion in the Lucid Motors case can be found here.Continue Reading 9th Circ.: SPAC Investors Lack Standing to Sue Over Merger Target Company’s Misrepresentations

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

As readers of this blog know, in the last couple of years a significant number of SPAC-related securities lawsuits have been filed, often arising after the post-merger de-SPAC company stumbles following the SPAC merger. In many of these cases, the securities suit plaintiffs often allege that the pre-merger private company made misleading statements about its business or operations, the truth about which only became apparent after the merger with the SPAC was completed.

In an interesting decision in a securities suit involving the used car consignment company CarLotz, which merged with a SPAC in January 2021, the court held that the named plaintiffs, one who purchased shares of the pre-merger SPAC and another bought shares in the post-merger de-SPAC, did not have standing under the securities laws to sue for alleged misrepresentations made by the pre-merger private company. Because this issue often comes up in SPAC-related securities suits, the court’s ruling potentially could have important implications in other SPAC lawsuits. A copy of the Southern District of New York’s March 31, 2023, order can be found here.Continue Reading Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Sue Over Pre-Merger Statements of SPAC Target Company

The directors’ and officers’ liability environment is always changing, but 2022 was a particularly eventful year, with important consequences for the D&O insurance marketplace. The past year’s many developments also have significant implications for what may lie ahead in 2023 – and possibly for years to come.  I have set out below the Top Ten D&O Stories of 2022, with a focus on future implications. Please note that on Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 11:00 AM EST, my colleagues Marissa Streckfus, Chris Bertola, and I will be conducting a free, hour-long webinar in which we will discuss The Top Ten D&O Stories of 2022. Registration for the webinar can be found here. I hope you will please join us for the webinar.Continue Reading The Top Ten D&O Stories of 2022

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

In one of the largest shareholder derivative lawsuit settlements ever, involving a very unusual derivative claim under Cayman Island law prosecuted in a U.S. court on behalf of a China-based Cayman Islands company, the parties to the Renren derivative litigation have agreed to settle the case for at least $300 million. The settlement is subject to a “true up” process that could increase the ultimate amount of the settlement payments. The settlement is also subject to court approval. The parties’ October 7, 2021 settlement stipulation can be found here. Renren’s October 8, 2021 press release about the settlement can be found here. An October 8, 2021 press release from the lead plaintiff’s counsel about the settlement can be found here.
Continue Reading N.Y. Derivative Suit Against China-Based Cayman Islands Company Settles for $300 Million