Posts from: Boris Feldman

Tower Versus Tower: Implications of SPAC Shareholder Litigation for the D&O Insurance World

Posted by Boris Feldman, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, on
Wednesday, May 12, 2021
, , , , , , , , ,
More from: ,

Boris Feldman is a partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

Historically, bubbles are followed by suits. After the Dot-Com Boom came the Dot-Com Bust, along with years of shareholder litigation. Ditto for the Credit Crunch. As we emerge from The Lockdown, SPACs are enjoying roaring popularity in the capital markets. Presumably, at some point the market will turn. Some SPACs no doubt will perform well and become models of business success. For those SPACs that do not thrive after going public, one can anticipate that the plaintiffs’ securities bar will be innovative in devising claims. This post is not about that.

Rather, this post ponders what a wave of SPAC shareholder suits may mean for the Directors and Officers Liability Insurance industry. My hypothesis is that, in the coming years, we may experience a volume of coverage disputes not seen in the shareholder litigation world since the individual/entity allocation battles of the 1990s. These disputes may be, not just between insured and insurer, but also between the different towers of insurance implicated by the lawsuits. Before the wave comes ashore, it may be useful for future participants to contemplate which conflicts will emerge and how they might play out.

READ MORE »

The Forum Wars of Section 11

Posted by Boris Feldman, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, on
Thursday, December 10, 2020
, , , , , ,
More from: ,

Boris Feldman is a partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

TL;DR: The battle over filing Section 11 lawsuits in state court may be approaching resolution. Multiple California courts have now upheld “Federal Forum Clauses,” which require shareholders to litigate Section 11 claims in Federal court. Judicial validation of such provisions has significant implications for companies going public and for the D&O insurance industry.

TROTS [The Rest of the Story]:

  1. Over the last decade, one of the hot topics in securities litigation has been The Forum Wars: may shareholder claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 be brought in state and Federal courts, or only in Federal court alone?
  2. This post presumes familiarity with the basics of Section 11. For a reader innocent of such familiarity the two Supreme Court decisions cited below (one the United States Supreme Court, the other the Delaware Supreme Court) provide a useful statutory primer. The Section 11 for Dummies version is this: Section 11 gives shareholders a virtually no-fault claim against a public company for material misstatements or omissions in its IPO prospectus. The claims against the company’s directors, and against the underwriters of the offering, are nearly as potent. In the security-plaintiff bar’s armory, the Section 11 claim is a magic bullet.

READ MORE »

Disclosures in Shareholder Lawsuits

Posted by Boris Feldman, Doru Gavril, and Elise Lopez, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, on
Thursday, October 29, 2020
, , , , , , ,
More from: , , , ,

Boris Feldman and Doru Gavril are partners and Elise Lopez is an associate at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. This post is based on a Freshfields memorandum by Mr. Feldman, Mr. Gavril, Ms. Lopez, and Drew Liming.

On October 8, 2020, a new Ninth Circuit ruling deepened a circuit split over whether allegations in another civil lawsuit could constitute a corrective disclosure in a securities fraud class action. See In re BofI Holding, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 31938 (9th Cir. Oct. 8, 2020) (the panel was comprised of Judges Paul J. Watford, Market J. Bennett, and Kenneth K. Lee, with Lee concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Ninth Circuit joins the Sixth Circuit in declining to adhere to a categorical rule that allegations in a civil suit can never constitute corrective disclosures. Id. at *20 (citing Norfolk Cty. Ret. Sys. v. Cmty. Health Sys., 877 F.3d 687, 696 (6th Cir. 2017)). The Eleventh Circuit remains at the other end of the spectrum, holding that, as a matter of law, allegations from civil suits cannot constitute corrective disclosures, even partial. See Sapssov v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., 608 F. App’x 855, 863 (11th Cir. 2015) (noting that “a civil suit is not proof of liability”). As a reminder, a corrective disclosure occurs when “information correcting the misstatement or omission that is the basis for the action is disseminated to the market.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(e)(1).

READ MORE »

California Court Enforces Federal Forum Provision for IPO Securities Lawsuits

Posted by Boris Feldman, Doru Gavril, and Pamela Marcogliese, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, on
Tuesday, September 15, 2020
, , , , ,
More from: , , , , ,

Boris Feldman, Doru Gavril, and Pamela L. Marcogliese are partners at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. This post is based on a Freshfields memorandum by Mr. Feldman, Mr. Gavril, Ms. Marcogliese, Mary Eaton, and Meredith Kotler.

On September 1, 2020, the California Superior Court, San Mateo County, granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action brought under the federal Securities Act of 1933 because the company’s charter provided that such lawsuits may only be maintained in federal court. [1] The ruling was long awaited by companies, securities litigators, and observers of the decade-long saga of IPO litigation in state courts. It is the first ruling enforcing such a provision after the Delaware Supreme Court upheld their validity under Delaware law earlier this year in Sciabacucchi.

The ruling confirms that companies about to go public—whether through a public offering, direct listing, or SPAC transaction—should adopt a federal forum provision in their charter or bylaws to eliminate the risk of duplicative securities class actions being filed in state court to extract a quick settlement. The ruling also suggests that a federal forum provision adopted after the going public event may also be enforceable under certain circumstances. Finally, the language of the provision matters and should be carefully weighed with experienced counsel.

The decade-long battle over state IPO litigation

The federal Securities Act of 1933 allows shareholders to sue the company, the signatories of its registration statement, any company control persons, and any underwriters, in connection with a registration statement that allegedly suffers from material misrepresentations or omissions. The plaintiff is not required to plead fraud. Strict liability applies to the company (while the other defendants benefit from an affirmative due diligence defense that realistically can only be established after incurring significant costs of discovery). Most public companies that experience a stock drop after going public are targeted by such lawsuits, styled as class actions and seeking damages sometimes ranging in the billions. Most of these lawsuits are dismissed by federal courts. So plaintiffs began filing them in state courts.

READ MORE »

Reinventing Depositions

Posted by Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, on
Thursday, May 14, 2020
, , , , ,
More from:

Boris Feldman is a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. This post reflects only his views, not those of his law firm or clients.

The Covid Crisis will affect every aspect of litigation. Growing familiarity with video-conferenced hearings likely will lead to the elimination of wasteful status-conference calendars, in which scores of lawyers sit around a courtroom for hours waiting for a 10-minute appearance to update the court on developments in a particular case. Courtroom automation, largely limited thus far to fancier projectors and displays, will adopt efficient technologies used in everyday business interactions.

This is the right time for the legal profession—and the business community more broadly—to reinvent depositions. Like many of the discovery rules adopted in the 1930’s and ’40’s, depositions had a noble objective: to eliminate trial by surprise. The theory was: give both sides full information, and the case will either be settled earlier or be tried more efficiently.

Like so many well-intentioned reforms, this one failed miserably. Depositions are one of the few forms of punishment not regulated under the Eighth Amendment. The entire structure and incentives are Goldbergian (Rube, not Arthur): lawyers on both sides are paid by the minute; there is no neutral present to prevent abuse or waste of time; surprise and wearing-down are the names of the game. Review a random sampling of depo transcripts, and your reaction will not be pride in our profession.

READ MORE »

Federal Forum Provision Possible Impact on D&O Insurance

Posted by Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, on
Monday, April 6, 2020
, , , , , , ,
More from:

Boris Feldman is a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. This post is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Monetary Liability for Breach of the Duty of Care? by Holger Spamann (discussed on the Forum here).

Since the Cyan decision in 2018, plaintiffs have gone hog-wild over state court Section 11 suits. The victory last week in the Delaware Supreme Court in the Sciabacucchi case (pronounced “Sha Ba Cookie”) provides a hopeful path forward for the issuer community. Here are some thoughts on how the decision may impact the D&O insurance world.

What is This All About?

Shareholder claims involving a public offering (of equity or debt) can be brought pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2018 confirmed that Section 11 claims may be brought in Federal or state court. Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, 138 S. Ct. 1061 (2018). State court is generally a favorable forum for plaintiffs. Historically, state judges have been reluctant to toss out meritless Section 11 claims that would not have survived scrutiny in Federal court.

In response to Cyan, many companies began to include a Federal Forum Provision (“FFP”) in their Articles of Incorporation. The Provision specified that a shareholder could only bring a Section 11 claim in Federal court. (Professor Joseph Grundfest of Stanford Law School was the principal proponent of such provisions. If you are interested in more detail about them, look at his article.)

No such provision is required for after-market shareholder class actions, brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. By statute, those claims can only be brought in Federal court.

Plaintiffs sued in the Delaware Court of Chancery to invalidate the Provisions. Plaintiffs prevailed in the trial court, but lost on appeal. The decision—in which my firm, Wilson Sonsini, represented the prevailing parties—is here.

READ MORE »

The Standard of Review for Challenged Director Compensation

Posted by Amy Simmerman and John Aguirre, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, on
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
, , , , , , ,
More from: , , , , , ,

Amy Simmerman and John Aguirre are partners at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. This post is based on a Wilson Sonsini memorandum by Ms. Simmerman, Mr. Aguirre, Boris Feldman, Brad Sorrels, Ryan Greecher, and Lori Will. This post is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On May 31, 2019, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a decision refusing to dismiss a stockholder’s fiduciary duty claims challenging the compensation of Goldman Sachs’ board of directors. [1] The case highlights the type of claim potentially available to stockholders in challenging board (and sometimes executive) compensation, and it provides important guidance for boards when considering the possibility of such a challenge. The decision also reflects the relative uptick we have seen in demands and challenges from stockholders and plaintiffs’ attorneys relating to board compensation.

Background

The Goldman Sachs decision builds on the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in Investors Bancorp, which concluded that director compensation involves an inherently conflicted decision on the part of a board and that, as a result, in a stockholder challenge to board compensation, a court may apply the entire fairness standard of judicial review, rather than the more deferential business judgment rule, absent adequate stockholder approval of the compensation at issue. [2] Under the entire fairness standard of review, the court examines the fairness of the compensation itself as well as the company’s processes relating to setting the compensation. Because the standard is fact-intensive and searching, it can result in protracted litigation that survives the pleadings stage. Importantly, Investors Bancorp further held that a stockholder vote approving director compensation can effectively preclude an entire fairness claim, but that the stockholder vote must approve specific amounts of compensation or self-effectuating formulas to be effective. This aspect of the ruling appeared to reverse several decisions from the Delaware Court of Chancery concluding that stockholder approval of director compensation within “meaningful limits” could eliminate entire fairness claims. Finally, the Investors Bancorp decision also permitted the plaintiff to challenge executive compensation paid to management members of the board where the board’s deliberations and approvals relating to that compensation appeared sufficiently intertwined with its decisions about director compensation.

READ MORE »

Current Developments in California Shareholder Litigation

Posted by Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, on
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
, , , , , , , , , ,
More from: ,

Boris Feldman is a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. This post is a version of Current Developments in Shareholder Litigation in California, a whitepaper Mr. Feldman partnered with AIG Financial Lines on producing and publishing. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is a member of AIG Financial Lines’ Management Liability Panel Counsel Program.

The dominant features in the shareholder litigation environment in California today are fragmentation and uncertainty:

  • Plaintiffs’ bar fragmentation means ‘too small to sue’ no longer applies
  • Uncertainty as to whether IPO lawsuits can be brought in state court or only Federal
  • Uncertainty in the evolution of merger and fiduciary duty suits
  • Uncertainty as to the strength of the Safe Harbor for forward looking statements
  • Uncertainty as to the evolving risk profile for private companies, which historically were less concerned about shareholder lawsuits

READ MORE »

Supreme Court: Fiduciaries Must Monitor Offered 401(k) Investment Alternatives

Posted by Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, on
Monday, June 22, 2015
, , , , , , ,
More from: ,

Boris Feldman is a member of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. This post is based on a WSGR alert.

On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Tibble v. Edison International that fiduciaries of 401(k) retirement plans have a continuing duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to monitor an investment alternative offered under a 401(k) plan after it is selected. In monitoring an investment alternative, the fiduciaries must engage in a prudent process. [1]

Although the principle described in Tibble was well understood by many 401(k) plan fiduciaries, the decision nonetheless serves as an important reminder that it is necessary for 401(k) plan fiduciaries to implement a due diligence process that will withstand scrutiny from the federal courts and the U.S. Department of Labor upon review.

READ MORE »

Implications of the Supreme Court Omnicare Decision

Posted by Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, on
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
, , , , , , , ,
More from: , , , ,

Boris Feldman is a member of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. This post is based on a WSGR alert authored by Mr. Feldman, Robert G. Day, Catherine Moreno, and Michael Nordtvedt.

On March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Omnicare, Inc., et al. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund et al., addressing when an issuer may be held liable for material misstatements or omissions under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for statements of opinion in a registration statement.

Among other things, the Supreme Court held that an issuer may be held liable under Section 11 for a statement of opinion, even one that is sincerely held, if its registration statement omits facts about the issuer’s inquiry into, or knowledge concerning, a statement of opinion and if those facts conflict with what a reasonable investor, reading the statement fairly and in context, would take from the statement itself.

READ MORE »

Page 1 of 2
1 2

  • Subscribe or Follow

  • Supported By:

  • Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board

    • William Ackman
    • Peter Atkins
    • David Bell
    • Richard Brand
    • Daniel Burch
    • Paul Choi
    • Jesse Cohn
    • Creighton Condon
    • Arthur Crozier
    • Michael Delikat
    • John Finley
    • Bruce H. Goldfarb
    • Joseph Hall
    • Jason M. Halper
    • Paul Hilal
    • Carl Icahn
    • Jack B. Jacobs
    • Jeffrey Kochian
    • Debra McCormack
    • David Millstone
    • Theodore Mirvis
    • Maria Moats
    • Erika Moore
    • Morton Pierce
    • Philip Richter
    • Paul Rowe
    • Marc Trevino
    • Steven J. Williams
    • Daniel Wolf

  • Programs Faculty & Senior Fellows

    • Lucian Bebchuk
    • Alon Brav
    • Robert Charles Clark
    • John Coates
    • Alma Cohen
    • Stephen M. Davis
    • Allen Ferrell
    • Jesse Fried
    • Oliver Hart
    • Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
    • Scott Hirst
    • Howell Jackson
    • Wei Jiang
    • Reinier Kraakman
    • Robert Pozen
    • Mark Ramseyer
    • Mark Roe
    • Robert Sitkoff
    • Holger Spamann
    • Guhan Subramanian