Stephen Blake and Adam Goldberg are partners and Bo Bryan Jin is an associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. This post is based on a Simpson Thacher memorandum by Mr. Blake, Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Jin, George Wang, Jonathan Youngwood, and James Kreissman. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Alibaba: A Case Study of Synthetic Control (discussed on the Forum here) by Jesse M. Fried and Ehud Kamar.
Renren, Inc. (“Renren”), a NYSE-listed Chinese company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, recently settled a shareholder derivative litigation in New York state court for at least $300 million. According to the complaint, Renren, which initially positioned itself as the “Facebook of China,” invested its 2011 NYSE IPO proceeds towards a number of ventures and became a de facto venture capital fund. The minority shareholder plaintiffs alleged that Renren’s CEO, Joseph Chen, along with certain other directors, controlling shareholders and the financial advisory company Duff & Phelps, defrauded Renren and its minority stockholders out of over $500 million in company investment assets by spinning off Renren’s assets into a private company in exchange for an undervalued cash dividend. The Renren plaintiffs asserted derivative claims under Cayman Islands law and New York law in connection with the spin-off.
This record-breaking settlement involving a U.S.-listed Chinese company comes several months after the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s finding that there was proper jurisdiction and standing to pursue Cayman law derivative claims in New York against Renren and its directors. See In re Renren, Inc., 192 A.D.3d 539, 140 N.Y.S.3d 701 (2021). Historically, derivative claims relating to non-U.S. companies incorporated offshore have faced significant legal hurdles in U.S. courts; these companies primarily faced exposure through federal securities litigation and SEC regulatory action. The Renren lawsuit and settlement illustrates that New York courts are increasingly willing to entertain derivative actions against non-U.S. companies, closely aligning the legal threats against the boards of such companies with that of U.S.-based and -incorporated issuers which often face secondary corporate law challenges whenever federal securities litigation is initiated.