Ninth Circuit Provides Guidance on SEC Rule 16b-3 Short-Swing Profit Liability Exemption
Sheppard Mullin | Corporate & Securities Law Blog » Securities Litigation
by John Stigi and John Mysliwiec
4M ago
In Roth v. Foris Ventures, LLC, Nos. 22-16632, 22-16633, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30081 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2023), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit partially reversed the dismissal of a shareholder derivative suit seeking to recover disgorgement of short-swing profits under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b). The three-judge panel held that the district court erred in holding that the company’s board was required to approve the stock sale transactions for the specific purpose of exempting it from Section 16(b) liability pursuant to ..read more
Visit website
Delaware Court of Chancery Clarifies Heightened Standard for Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees in Disclosure-Based Deal Litigation
Sheppard Mullin | Corporate & Securities Law Blog » Securities Litigation
by John Stigi, Alejandro Moreno and Eugene Choi
9M ago
In Anderson v. Magellan Health, Inc., No. 2021-0202, — A.3d —-, 2023 WL 4364524 (Del. Ch. July 6, 2023) (McCormick, C.), the Delaware Court of Chancery addressed the circumstances under which the Court will award a shareholder plaintiff attorneys’ fees in disclosure-based deal litigation. In particular, Anderson analyzed the history of disclosure-based deal litigation in Delaware and the Court’s evolving standard for awarding fees where shareholder action has caused a company to issue additional pre-merger disclosures “mooting” pending deal litigation. Prior to the decision in Anderson ..read more
Visit website
Ninth Circuit Enforces Delaware Forum Selection Clause to Affirm Dismissal of Derivative Claim for Alleged Violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Sheppard Mullin | Corporate & Securities Law Blog » Securities Litigation
by John Stigi and Alejandro Moreno
10M ago
In Lee v. Fisher, No. 21-15923, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13521 (9th Cir. June 1, 2023), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the dismissal of a shareholder derivative complaint alleging, among other things, violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9 (collectively, the “Proxy Claims”), enforcing a forum-selection clause in the defendant company’s bylaws designating the Delaware Court of Chancery as the exclusive jurisdiction for ad ..read more
Visit website
United States Supreme Court Holds That Section 11 Plaintiffs Must Purchase Securities Issued Under the Registration Statement They Seek to Challenge
Sheppard Mullin | Corporate & Securities Law Blog » Securities Litigation
by John Stigi and John Landry
10M ago
In Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani, No. 22-200, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2301 (U.S. June 1, 2023), the Supreme Court of the United States (Gorsuch, J.) held that Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77k, requires plaintiffs to show that they purchased securities registered under the registration statement they seek to challenge, a requirement the Supreme Court referred to as “tracing.” In Slack, the public offering occurred under circumstances that did not allow the plaintiff or other purchasers to trace any security to the challenged registration statement. A ..read more
Visit website
California Court of Appeal Holds that a Corporation’s Direct Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty is Legal Rather than Equitable, Requiring a Trial by Jury
Sheppard Mullin | Corporate & Securities Law Blog » Securities Litigation
by John Stigi and Melissa Mikail
1y ago
In ZF Micro Solutions, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd., 2022 WL 4090879 (Cal. App. Aug. 8, 2022), the Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal decided, as a matter of first impression, that a non-derivative breach of fiduciary duty cause of action seeking compensatory damages was legal rather than equitable, and therefore required a jury trial as a matter of law. The Court arrived at its conclusion by evaluating the right and relief requested. In so doing, the Court concluded that because the claim at hand exhibited all the characteristics of a cause of action at la ..read more
Visit website
Second Circuit Declines to Allow SEC Rule 10b-5 Claim for “Scheme Liability” to Proceed Where the Alleged Misconduct Amounted Only to the Making of Material Misstatements or Omissions 
Sheppard Mullin | Corporate & Securities Law Blog » Securities Litigation
by John Stigi and Alejandro Moreno
1y ago
In SEC v. Rio Tinto PLC, No. 21-2042, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19577 (2d Cir. July 15, 2022) (Jacobs, J.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to impose “scheme liability” under subsections (a) and (c) of the Securities & Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5) where the challenged conduct amounted solely to the making of a material misstatement or omission. The Rio Tinto decision is noteworthy because it limits the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lorenzo v. SEC, 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019) (blog article here), which potentially expanded “scheme ..read more
Visit website
California Court of Appeal Clarifies that a Derivative Plaintiff Must Demonstrate Both “Contemporaneous” and “Continuous” Ownership to Maintain a Derivative Suit on Behalf of a Limited Liability Company
Sheppard Mullin | Corporate & Securities Law Blog » Securities Litigation
by John Stigi and Alejandro Moreno
2y ago
In Sirott v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 389 (Cal. App. May 5, 2022), the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal (Humes, J.) analyzed the ownership requirements a plaintiff must satisfy to pursue derivative claims on behalf of a limited liability company.  Under California Corporations Code § 17709.02 (“Section 17709.02”), a putative derivative plaintiff must show both “contemporaneous” and “continuous” ownership to proceed with a derivative lawsuit.  Subject to certain statutorily defined exceptions, the contemporaneous ownership prerequisite requires t ..read more
Visit website
Los Angeles Superior Court Invalidates California Board Diversity Statute, Rendering It Ripe for Review by the California Court of Appeal
Sheppard Mullin | Corporate & Securities Law Blog » Securities Litigation
by John Stigi, Alejandro Moreno and Chloe Chung
2y ago
In Crest v. Padilla, No. 20STCV37513 (Cal. Super. Apr. 1, 2022), the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles (Green, J.) declared that Section 301.4 of the California Corporations Code is unconstitutional under the California state Constitution.  Section 301.4 requires publicly held corporations which have their principal executive offices located in California to include “underrepresented communities” on their boards of directors.  The trial court granted the taxpayer plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the statute violated equal protection c ..read more
Visit website
California Court of Appeal Addresses Derivative Standing and Failure of Oversight Claims Under Delaware Law
Sheppard Mullin | Corporate & Securities Law Blog » Securities Litigation
by John Stigi and Alejandro Moreno
2y ago
In Tola v. Bryant, No. 16150, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 241 (Cal. App. Mar. 24, 2022), the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal applied Delaware’s new formulation of the test for determining whether a stockholder has standing to assert derivative claims on behalf of a company.  Under the test articulated by the Delaware Supreme Court in United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Zuckerberg, 262 A.3d 1034, 1058 (Del. 2021), a stockholder of a Delaware corporation has standing to assert derivative claims when the stockholder can plead particularized facts, on a director ..read more
Visit website
California Court of Appeal Holds that SEC Filings May Be Protected Activities Under Anti-SLAPP Statute
Sheppard Mullin | Corporate & Securities Law Blog » Securities Litigation
by John Stigi, Valerie Alter and Gian Ryan
2y ago
On December 27, 2021, the California Court of Appeal issued two decisions addressing whether claims arising from statements made in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) fall within California’s statute designed to deter “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or “SLAPPs,” arising from protected speech.  In Sugarman v. Benett, No. B307753, 2021 WL 6111725  (Cal. App. Dec. 27, 2021) (“Benett”), and Sugarman v. Brown, No. B308318, 2021 WL 6111718 (Cal. App. Dec. 27, 2021) (“Brown”), the Court held that state law claims arising out of disclosures in fed ..read more
Visit website

Follow Sheppard Mullin | Corporate & Securities Law Blog » Securities Litigation on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR