It has now been several years since the peak of the SPAC boom, but litigation from that period continues to work its way through the courts. One of the ongoing cases, involving a 2020 SPAC transaction, involves the question of when the applicable three-year statute of limitations begins to run.Continue Reading SPAC Fallout, Accrual Battles, and the Long Tail of De-SPAC Risk
In the following guest post, Geoffrey B. Fehling and Machaella Reisman of the Hunton Andrew Kurth law firm,take a look at a recent Delaware federal court decision involving a D&O insurance coverage dispute in which one of the key issues was the timing of the policyholder’s declaratory judgment action against its excess insurers. A version of this article was previously published on the Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog. I would like to thank Geoff and Machaella 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 site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the author’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Del. Court Tells Wiring Manufacturer It’s Too Early and Too Late
In the following guest post, Geoffrey B. Fehling and Michael S. Levine review and analyze a September 2, 2021 Fifth Circuit decision in which the appellate court reversed a lower court ruling and held that a D&O insurance policy must cover a settlement related to a social engineering loss. Geoffrey is a counsel in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Boston office and Michael is a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. 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: 5th Circ.: D&O Insurer Must Cover Firm for Social Engineering Losses Despite Professional Services Exclusion
In a recent post (here), David Kaplan of the Saxena White P.A. law firm and Lane Arnold, a Senior Director – Legal at the University of Texas/Texas A&M Investment Management Company (UTIMCO), discussed the Catch-22 in which the court’s rulings in the Valeant securities class action opt-out cases had put prospective securities suit opt-outs. In the following guest post, Kaplan and Hani Farah, also of the Saxena White law firm, update the prior post and discuss the June 16, 2021 Third Circuit decision in the Valeant case (here), in which the appellate court overturned the lower court’s rulings and rejected the “Forfeiture Rule” that put the opt-outs into the Catch-22. I would like to thank Dave and Hani for allowing me to publish their article on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s reader. Please contact me directly of you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Dave and Hani’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Update on The Valeant Appeal: Third Circuit Rejects The “Forfeiture Rule” for Opt-Outs
As I noted at the time, in December 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in China Agritech Inc. v. Resh to take up the question of whether the prior filing of a class action lawsuit tolls statutes of limitation to permit previously absent class members to bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable limitations period. Oral argument in the case took place on Monday, October 26, 2018. In the following guest post, Noelle Reed, Austin Winniford, and Caroline Van Zile of the Skadden Arps law firm provide their analysis of the oral argument. 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’ guest post.
****************************************Continue Reading Guest Post: Supreme Court Weighs Whether To Extend American Pipe Tolling
On June 5, 2017, in an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a unanimous court, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the five-year statute of limitations applies to claims for disgorgement imposed as a sanction for violation the federal securities laws. The Court rejected the SEC’s argument that the statute of limitations was not applicable to claims for disgorgement. The decision provides greater certainty about the scope of potential liability for parties facing SEC liability. The decision is also important in light of the other securities law statute of limitations case that remains pending on the Court’s docket. The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 5, 2017 opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds Disgorgement Claims Subject to Five-Year Statute of Limitations
Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in two cases involving the limitations periods under the federal securities laws. One case, as I noted in a post earlier this week, will address the question of whether or not the filing of a securities class action tolls the Securities Act’s statue of repose. The second case, Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission (about which refer here), involves the question of whether or not the five-year statute of limitations applicable to SEC enforcement actions seeking civil penalties applies to disgorgement claims. In the following guest post, attorneys from the Paul Weiss law firm take a look at the case and the issues it presents, as well as its potential implications. I would like to thank the Paul Weiss attorneys for their willingness to publish their 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 to Review Whether Statute of Limitations Applies to SEC Disgorgement Claims
Among the important legal issues that arise in connection with securities class action litigation is the question of impact of the filing of a complaint on the running of the statutes of limitation and the statutes of repose. In analyzing statute of limitations issues, one of the tools that the courts have used is the so-called American Pipe tolling doctrine, named after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1974 decision in American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah. A recurring question has been whether or not American Pipe Tolling applies to statutes of repose. In the following guest post, attorneys from the Paul Weiss law firm take a look a recent Sixth Circuit decision holding that American Pipe tolling doctrine does not apply to the federal securities laws’ statutes of repose.
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit, in Agreement with Second Circuit, Holds American Pipe Tolling Doesn’t Apply to Statutes of Repose
On June 11, 2015, in a closely watched case, the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, decided when the statute of limitations begins to run for claimants alleging breaches of the representations and warranties provisions in residential mortgage backed securities.
As Robert Fumerton and Alexander Drylewski of the Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher
On April 30, 2015, the New York Court of Appeals heard oral argument in a mortgage-backed securities-related case in which the court must consider when the statute of limitations begins to run for claims of breach of contractual representations and warranties. The range of possible outcomes of the case include an interpretation of the statute