
One of the ways that underlying problems or events can translate into a D&O claim is through a “follow-on” lawsuit alleging the defendant company’s board should be held liable for the underlying problem. In the latest example of this phenomenon, a plaintiff shareholder has filed a derivative lawsuit against the board of Uber, calling the company a “serial compliance offender,” and seeking to hold the board liable for allegedly recurring sexual assault and harassment claims and other alleged legal violations. As discussed below, the new lawsuit illustrates the frequently repeated catch phrase that sooner or later, everything becomes a D&O claim. A copy of the new Uber complaint can be found here.
Continue Reading Derivative Suit Alleges Uber is a “Serial Compliance Offender”
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
The