Daily Archives: Friday, March 18, 2022

Developments in U.S. Securities Fraud Class Actions Against Non-U.S. Issuers

David H. KistenbrokerJoni S. Jacobsen, and Angela M. Liu are partners at Dechert LLP. This post is based on a Dechert memorandum by Mr. Kistenbroker, Ms. Jacobson, Ms. Liu and Anna Q. Do.

Introduction

Overall, securities class action filings dropped in 2021, down 35% from 2020. [1] This decrease is driven largely by a drop in new merger and acquisition class actions. Similarly, the number of securities class actions against non-U.S. issuers dropped significantly from 88 in 2020 to only 42 in 2021. [2] In contrast, as compared to all securities class actions, the percentage of cases against non-U.S. issuers decreased, but only slightly, from 27% in 2020 to 20% in 2021.

In 2021, plaintiffs filed a total of 42 securities class action lawsuits [3] against non-U.S. issuers.

  • As was the case in 2020, the Second Circuit continues to be the jurisdiction of choice for plaintiffs to bring securities claims against non-U.S. issuers. Roughly 75% of these 42 lawsuits (32) were filed in courts in the Second Circuit. A majority (20) of these lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York, followed closely by the Eastern District of New York (12). The Third, Ninth and Seventh Circuits followed with 5, 3 and 2 complaints, respectively.
  • Continuing the trend in 2020, most non-U.S. issuer lawsuits were against companies with headquarters and/or principal place of business in China and Canada. Of the 42 non-U.S. issuer lawsuits filed in 2021, 18 were filed against non-U.S. issuers with headquarters and/or a principal place of business in China, and 7 were filed against non-U.S. issuers with a headquarters and/ or principal place of business in Canada, followed by 4 non-U.S. issuers with headquarters and/or principal place of business in the United Kingdom.
  • g The Rosen Law Firm led with the most first-in-court filings against non-U.S. issuers in 2021 (12), followed by Pomerantz LLP (9). This is consistent with the trend in 2018-2020, when the Rosen Law Firm was the most active plaintiff law firm in this space. Also like the trend of the last several years, the Rosen Law Firm and Pomerantz LLP were appointed lead counsel in the most cases in 2021 (with 6 and 5, respectively), followed closely by Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (with 3 each).
  • The majority of securities class actions against non-U.S. issuers (26 of 42) were filed in the third and fourth quarters of 2021.
  • While the suits cover a diverse range of industries, the largest portion of the suits involved the software and programming industry (10) and the biotechnology and drugs industry (7).

An examination of the types of cases filed in 2021 reveals the following substantive trends:

  • About 24% of the cases involved alleged misrepresentations in connection with regulatory requirements and/or approvals (10). This includes seven cases involving alleged misrepresentations in connection with China’s regulatory requirements and/or approvals—with four involving China’s regulations on data protection and cybersecurity.

READ MORE »

The EU Sustainable Corporate Governance Initiative: Where are We and Where are We Headed?

Wolf-Georg Ringe is Director of the Institute of Law & Economics at the University of Hamburg and Visiting Professor at the University of Oxford Faculty of Law; Alperen A. Gözlügöl is Assistant Professor at the Law & Finance cluster of the Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.

The European Union, frequently seen as the international pace-setter in ESG regulation, is currently making some decisive changes to its regulatory framework. As readers of this Forum will know, the EU had started a sustainable corporate governance initiative back in 2020. This initiative was backed by an Ernst & Young report, called a “study on directors’ duties and sustainable corporate governance”. The initiative and especially the EY study drew fierce criticism, also from many U.S. scholars, indicating some misleading and erroneous elements (such as Roe et al (2020); Coffee, Jr. (2020)).

The Initiative gained global attention partly because of taking stock with the “corporate purpose” debate. It indicated that an EU level initiative to empower corporate directors to integrate wider interests into corporate decisions was in sight. Specifically, a reform option was to require (or allow) “company directors to take into account all stakeholders’ interests which are relevant for the long-term sustainability of the firm or which belong to those affected by it (employees, environment, other stakeholders affected by the business, etc.), as part of their duty of care to promote the interests of the company and pursue its objectives…”.

Just now, the European Commission (‘Commission’) has followed up with a long-awaited Proposal for a Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence (‘CSDD’). The delay in the adoption of the Proposal including the trouble with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (a quality control and support body for Commission impact assessments and evaluations at early stages of the legislative process) that unusually issued two negative opinions in itself indicates controversies surrounding the initiative.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: March 11-17, 2022


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of March 11-17, 2022.

Women and M&A


Remarks by Chair Gensler Before the Investor Advisory Committee






2022 Proxy Season Preview


IPO Readiness: Establishing an Initial Equity Program and Share Reserve Pool


Countercyclical Corporate Governance


EU Publishes Draft Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive


ESG Leader or Laggard?


The False Promise of ESG



What Exactly Is an Independent Director?


Trading Ahead of Barbarians’ Arrival at the Gate: Insider Trading on Non-Inside Information


Coming to Terms with a Maturing ESG Landscape