THE FUTURE OF SAY-ON-PAY DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
|
|
- Grace Arabella Park
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Vol. 45 No. 7 April 11, 2012 THE FUTURE OF SAY-ON-PAY DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Negative say-on-pay advisory votes in a number of cases have spawned shareholder derivative litigation claims that directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving pay raises and bonuses to executives despite poor corporate performance. With one exception, courts deciding such cases have granted defendants motions to dismiss for failure to make a pre-suit demand on the board or by invoking the business judgment rule. But many cases remain undecided and the 2012 proxy season is likely to generate more litigation, especially in cases of two negative votes. By Michele D. Johnson and Colleen C. Smith * The 2011 proxy season was the first year that, under Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Act, most publicly traded companies were required to seek a non-binding shareholder vote to approve the company s executive compensation plan, a so-called say-on-pay vote. About 40 companies failed to receive support from a majority of their shareholders for their executive compensation proposals. 1 Almost half were promptly sued. In each case, shareholders filed derivative actions claiming that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving pay raises and bonuses to executives in a year when, according to the plaintiffs, the companies performed poorly and the executive recipients of the compensation were unjustly enriched. Only a few courts have addressed these claims. Of the seven rulings so far, a consensus is emerging that an 1 See Council of Institutional Investors, Say on Pay: Identifying Investor Concerns, Farient Advisors LLC (Sept. 2011). MICHELE D. JOHNSON is a partner in the Orange County, California office of Latham & Watkins LLP and COLLEEN C. SMITH is an associate in the firm s San Diego office. Their addresses are michele.johnson@lw.com and colleen.smith@lw.com. April 11, 2012 adverse shareholder say-on-pay vote does not give rise to a valid breach of fiduciary duty claim and is not a sufficient basis to overcome the business judgment rule. These rulings seem to be consistent with Congress s express instruction in Dodd-Frank that the shareholder vote is not to be construed as changing or adding to the fiduciary duties of the company or its board of directors. 2 Within some of these decisions, however, dissension remains regarding the extent to which a negative shareholder say-on-pay vote may be construed as evidence sufficient to rebut the business judgment rule that normally presumes that directors conduct was undertaken in good faith. Courts have not yet ruled in a number of pending cases presenting this issue, leaving substantial uncertainty as to the viability of these claims. Adding to this uncertainty is whether derivative claims based upon 2 15 U.S.C. 78n-1(c). IN THIS ISSUE THE FUTURE OF SAY-ON-PAY DERIVATIVE LITIGATION SEC AND FINRA: PRIORITIES AND ENFORCEMENT TRENDS, Page 75 Page 69
2 RSCR Publications LLC Published 22 times a year by RSCR Publications LLC. Executive and Editorial Offices, 2628 Broadway, Suite 29A, New York, NY Subscription rates: $1,197 per year in U.S., Canada, and Mexico; $1,262 elsewhere (air mail delivered). A 15% discount is available for qualified academic libraries and full-time teachers. For subscription information and customer service call (866) or visit our Web site at General Editor: Michael O. Finkelstein; tel ; mofinkelstein@hotmail.com. Associate Editor: Sarah Strauss Himmelfarb; tel ; shimmelfarb@comcast.net. To submit a manuscript for publication contact Ms. Himmelfarb. Copyright 2012 by RSCR Publications LLC. ISSN: Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. Information has been obtained by The Review of Securities & Commodities Regulation from sources believed to be reliable. However, because of the possibility of human or mechanical error by our sources, The Review of Securities & Commodities Regulation does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of such information. not one, but two, failed shareholder votes might be more durable. As the 2012 proxy season begins, new questions will likely emerge regarding directors and officers obligations to shareholders following a failed say-on-pay vote: What steps must a company take following a negative vote? Are two negative votes sufficient evidence to rebut the business judgment rule? These and similar questions loom large for the 2012 proxy season. The 2011 Cases: Courts Are Divided Regarding the Viability of Say-on-Pay Derivative Claims Although many say-on-pay cases are pending, relatively few courts have reached decisions regarding the viability of these novel claims at the pleading stage. Six of the seven decisions issued so far have concluded that say-on-pay derivative claims should not proceed, either because the shareholder plaintiffs failed to make the required pre-suit demand on the board of directors, or because the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to rebut the business judgment rule, or both. The one case reaching a contrary conclusion was not decided under Delaware law. It remains to be seen how the many courts currently considering motions to dismiss in other say-on-pay cases will come out. Teamsters Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund v. McCarthy (Beazer Homes) Beazer Homes was one of the first companies to report a negative say-on-pay vote, after 54% of the voted shares disapproved of the company s executive pay program. A shareholder promptly filed a derivative action in Georgia state court, alleging that the Beazer Homes board approved pay increases for its top four executives in 2010, including a 7.2% increase for the CEO, in a year when Beazer Homes suffered a loss of $34 million and a decline in share price of more than 17% as a result of the collapse of the housing market. The plaintiff alleged that the board breached its fiduciary duties by approving excessive executive pay, by recommending that shareholders approve the executives compensation, and by not rescinding the compensation program following the negative say-on-pay vote. The defendants and the company moved to dismiss, arguing that under Delaware law the shareholder plaintiff failed to plead that a demand on the board to file suit on behalf of the company would have been futile, and that the complaint did not allege particularized facts sufficient to rebut the business judgment presumption. The Georgia Superior Court agreed and dismissed the suit. 3 Applying Delaware law, the court first considered whether the plaintiff was required to make a pre-suit demand on the board, or whether a demand was excused because the complaint raised a reasonable doubt either that a majority of the board was disinterested, or that the challenged decision was the result of a valid exercise of business judgment. 4 The court concluded that the plaintiff had not raised a reasonable doubt on either score. Where only one member of the seven-member board received the challenged pay, and the plaintiff did not allege that this insider controlled the other board members, the fact that the directors had approved the challenged compensation was not sufficient to establish that the board could not faithfully evaluate a litigation demand. 5 The court similarly held that the adverse say-on-pay vote did not raise a reasonable doubt that the compensation decisions were the product of a valid exercise of business judgment, holding instead that [h]indsight second-guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking of the sort Plaintiffs urge are fundamentally inconsistent with the business judgment analysis. 6 The directors could not have taken the shareholders views into account when making compensation decisions because the say-on-pay vote had not yet occurred. And because Dodd-Frank expressly provides that the say-on-pay vote is not binding and does not change directors fiduciary duties, the directors were 3 Teamsters Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund v. McCarthy, No CV (Ga. Super. Fulton County Sept. 16, 2011). 4 See Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 814 (Del. 1984). 5 McCarthy, slip op. at 8-9, Id. slip op. at 11. April 11, 2012 Page 70
3 not obligated to rescind the executives compensation following the later vote. 7 In addition to failing to plead that a demand on the board would have been futile, the complaint also failed to state a claim, according to the Georgia court, because no alleged facts justified departure from the business judgment rule or established that the directors misled shareholders regarding the company s pay-forperformance compensation policy. 8 NECA-IBEW Pension Fund v. Cox (Cincinnati Bell) Within days of the McCarthy decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio reached the opposite result under Ohio law, refusing to dismiss a similar say-on-pay derivative action filed by shareholders of Cincinnati Bell, Inc. 9 The suit was filed after 66% of Cincinnati Bell s shareholders voted down the company s plan to increase executive compensation for its top three executives by between 54.3% and 80.3% for 2010, the same year that the company suffered an allegedly dismal $61 million decline in net income, a drop in earnings per share, and a negative shareholder return of almost 19%. In their motion to dismiss, the Cincinnati Bell defendants made arguments similar to those advanced in McCarthy: both that a pre-suit demand on the board would not have been futile, and that the complaint failed to state a claim in light of the business judgment rule. Applying Ohio law, according to the state of incorporation of Cincinnati Bell, the district court held that the plaintiff had stated a plausible claim that the multi-million dollar bonuses approved by the directors in a time of the company s declining financial performance violated Cincinnati Bell s pay-for-performance compensation policy and constituted an abuse of discretion or bad faith. 10 The court found the negative shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation to be direct and probative evidence that the 2010 executive compensation was not in the best interests of the Cincinnati Bell shareholders. 11 In contrast to Delaware law, under Ohio law, the plaintiff was not required to plead with particularity facts sufficient to rebut the business judgment presumption, leaving the 7 Id. slip op. at Id. slip op. at NECA-IBEW Pension Fund v. Cox, No. 11-CV-451, 2011 WL (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2011). 10 Id. at *3. 11 Id. at *3 n.4. court to conclude that although the defendants may offer the business judgment rule as an affirmative defense at trial or on a summary judgment motion, dismissal on this 12 ground was not warranted. The district court also rejected the defendants contention that the plaintiff failed to plead demand futility. In another departure from Delaware law, demand under Ohio law is presumptively futile when the directors are involved in the challenged transaction. 13 The district court reasoned that demand was futile because the directors devised, approved, and recommended the challenged compensation, and then suffered a negative shareholder vote on the plan. The court also held that the three top executives, though they rendered valuable services to the company, may have been unjustly enriched as a result of the directors alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. 14 Two subsequent rulings from the Ohio district court in Cox cast some doubt on the precedential value of its ruling sustaining the complaint. First, the court denied the plaintiff s application for a preliminary injunction that would have enjoined the board from effectuating the 2010 executive compensation plan and would have placed the increased compensation into a constructive trust. 15 Although having found that the plaintiff alleged plausible claims at the pleading stage, the court was unable to conclude on the merits that the plaintiff was likely to overcome the business judgment rule or prove that the defendants acted with intent to injure the corporation. Second, the defendants brought another motion to dismiss that questioned the diversity of citizenship between the parties and, thus, the federal court s subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. In response, the court issued an order to show cause why its earlier order sustaining the complaint should not be vacated, and afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to demonstrate that it should be permitted to file an amended complaint dismissing the non-diverse defendant. In the meantime, the precedential effect of the court s order denying the defendants initial motion to dismiss remains in question. 12 Id. at * Id. at *4. 14 Id. at * NECA-IBEW Pension Fund v. Cox, No. 11-CV-00451, 2011 WL (Sept. 26, 2011). April 11, 2012 Page 71
4 Plumbers Local No. 137 Pension Fund v. Davis (Umpqua Holdings) The five decisions in say-on-pay cases reached since Cox have declined to follow that court s reasoning. In Davis, Umpqua Holdings executive officers allegedly received pay increases in 2010 of 60% to 160%, while shareholder return decreased by 7.7%, and about 62% of the shares were voted against the company s compensation proposal. 16 The District of Oregon concluded, primarily under Delaware law, that the plaintiffs did not plead demand futility, as only one member of the 10-member board received the challenged compensation, and the fact that the other directors were involved in determining or approving the challenged compensation did not raise a reasonable doubt regarding their independence and disinterestedness under Oregon and Delaware law. 17 The court rejected the plaintiffs reliance upon Cox, both because of the defendants subsequent challenge to that court s subject matter jurisdiction, and, as a matter of substance, because plaintiff s argument amounted to a contention that every pre-suit demand would suggest impending liability, thereby effectively erasing the demand requirement altogether. 18 The court similarly concluded that because compensation determinations are typically within the business judgment of the board, neither the allegation that executive compensation was not aligned with corporate performance, nor the negative say-on-pay vote, raised a reasonable doubt that the directors exercised their good faith business judgment. Furthermore, plaintiff s view that the board s compensation decision violated the company s pay-forperformance policy was insufficient to allege that the board intentionally misled shareholders. 19 Laborers Local #231 Pension Fund v. Intersil Similar to the plaintiffs in Davis, the shareholder plaintiff in Intersil alleged that the company s executive compensation plan for 2010 raised the compensation of 16 Plumbers Local No. 137 Pension Fund v. Davis, No. 11-CV- 633-AC, 2012 WL , *2 (D. Ore. Feb. 23, 2012). 17 Id. at *3. While the controlling law was that of Oregon the state of Umpqua s incorporation, because this area of Oregon law is undeveloped and Oregon courts routinely look to Delaware law for guidance, the findings and recommendations depend heavily upon Delaware law. Id. at *3 n Id. 19 Id. at *6. the company s named executives by an average of 41.7% in a year when net income and earnings per share fell by 30%, and Intersil s shareholders rejected the company s say-on-pay proposal by 56%. 20 Applying Delaware law, the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff s failure to plead facts sufficient to excuse a pre-suit demand on the board. After surveying the say-on-pay cases decided to date, the court embraced the majority view that a shareholder vote alone is insufficient to rebut the presumption of the business judgment rule. The decision left open the possibility that a negative shareholder vote may be used as evidence albeit insufficient by itself to raise a reasonable doubt that a company s directors exercised their good faith business judgment in setting executive compensation. 21 Weinberg v. Gold (BioMed Realty Trust) In Weinberg v. Gold, the District of Maryland also recently rejected a shareholder say-on-pay lawsuit. Applying Maryland law, the court held that the BioMed directors participation in issuing the proxy statement and approving the challenged compensation, and their refusal to modify the executive compensation in response to a negative say-on-pay vote, did not excuse a pre-suit demand. 22 The Weinberg court soundly rejected the plaintiff s reliance on Cox, given that Cox was decided under Ohio law and was therefore not persuasive. 23 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. & PICO Holdings The final two courts to have decided motions to dismiss say-on-pay litigation as of the date of this writing support the defendants, but not conclusively so. In Jacobs Engineering, the California state court twice sustained the defendants demurrer for failure to plead demand futility under California (and identical Delaware) law finding the reasoning of the Cox court unpersuasive and noting that executive compensation 20 Laborers Local #231 Pension Fund v. Intersil, No. 11-CV EJD, 2012 WL , *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012). 21 Id. at *8. 22 Weinberg v. Gold, F. Supp. 2d, 2012 WL , *5 (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2012). Latham & Watkins represents BioMed in this case. 23 Id. April 11, 2012 Page 72
5 is generally a matter of business judgment which the courts will not second-guess. 24 In the PICO Holdings cases, originally brought in California state court, the defendants removed to federal court and moved to dismiss. The federal court dismissed the claim under the Dodd-Frank Act, which did not create a private right of action or create new fiduciary duties, but remanded the state law claims to state court. 25 The 2012 Proxy Season: Predictions for the Future While many say-on-pay lawsuits filed in the wake of the 2011 proxy season remain undecided, the consensus so far suggests that other courts will reject such claims. Less clear is how courts will address these issues following the 2012 proxy season. A few principles drawn from the cases that have been decided provide some clues to the future of say-on-pay litigation. First, the Cox court s denial of a motion to dismiss has encouraged plaintiffs lawyers to pursue say-on-pay claims against directors of other companies with failed say-on-pay votes. Thus far, almost half of the companies with failed say-on-pay votes during 2011 have been named in shareholder suits, with the most recent lawsuit having been filed in January This wave of litigation is probably not over. Given Cox, still more lawsuits will surely be filed by shareholders of other companies that experience negative say-on-pay votes in Jacobs Eng ing Group, Inc. Consol. S holder Deriv. Litig., No. BC (Los Angeles Super. Ct. Mar. 6, 2012 & Nov. 11, 2011). 25 Assad v. Hart, No. 11-CV-2269 WQH (BGS), at 5; Dennis v. Hart, No. 11-CV-2271 WQH (WVG), at 5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2012). 26 In addition to the cases discussed in this article, the lawsuits filed following 2011 say-on-pay votes are collected here: Gordon v. Goodyear, No. 12-CV (N.D. Ill. filed Jan. 18, 2012); Woodford v. Mizel, No. 11-CV UNA (D. Del. filed Sept. 28, 2011); Haberland v. Bulkeley, 11-CV (E.D.N.C., filed Sept. 1, 2011); Swanson v. Weil, No. 11-CV (D. Colo. filed Aug. 16, 2011); Wyrick v. Redling, No. 11- CV PD (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 5, 2011); City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Kratz, No. 11-CV (S.D. Tex. filed Jul. 8, 2011); Freedman v. Bruch, No /2011 (N.Y.S. filed June 21, 2011); Matthews v. Rynd, No. 11-CV-2706 (S.D. Tex. filed June 8, 2011). Second, the outcome of these cases may depend substantially upon the applicable law. In McCarthy and Davis, the courts application of Delaware s demand futility pleading principles led to dismissals. Courts applying Delaware law seem unlikely to depart from these courts reasoning, although the Intersil court s reasoning leaves open the possibility that a plaintiff might satisfy Delaware s pleading standards by alleging something more than just a failed say-on-pay vote. In contrast, the less stringent requirements of Ohio law enabled the plaintiff in Cox to survive the pleading stage. Future decisions will inform whether Cox is an outlier, or whether say-on-pay claims can survive motions to dismiss under any other state s laws. Third, the decisions so far address only claims premised upon a single failed say-on-pay vote. No company has yet failed two votes. While the existing decisions will be instructive in such cases, the new issues presented by two consecutive failed (or narrowly successful) say-on-pay votes are yet to be tested. Several of the decisions to date have concluded that the shareholder plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to rebut the business judgment rule, because a shareholder vote of disapproval after the fact cannot establish that the directors acted in anything but good faith at the time they set executive compensation levels. But how directors respond in the following year to shareholders expression of dissatisfaction with executive compensation will likely be central to any court s analysis of the business judgment rule. Indeed, regulations adopted in January 2011 implementing Dodd-Frank require disclosure of whether and how consideration of the most recent say-on-pay vote affected a company s executive compensation policies and decisions. 27 Moreover, many companies have voluntarily committed in their 2011 proxy statements to taking their shareholders views into account in making future compensation decisions. Whether any of the 40 companies with failed say-onpay votes, or the many others that received narrow majority support for their executive compensation proposals in 2011, will fail to obtain majority shareholder support in 2012 remains to be seen. So far, two of the companies that experienced failed votes last year Beazer Homes and Jacobs Engineering were fortunate to receive overwhelming support for their sayon-pay proposals in If one of the 40 again fails its say-on-pay vote, the issues presented may be more challenging for those companies and their directors to overcome at the pleading stages C.F.R (b)(1)(vii) (2011). April 11, 2012 Page 73
What is the True Impact of The Dodd-Frank s Say-on-Pay Rule?
What is the True Impact of The Dodd-Frank s Say-on-Pay Rule? Introduction By Richard Moon & Matthew Bahl 1 The Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( Dodd Frank ) took aim at executive
More informationPlaintiffs Firms Gaining Steam in New Wave of Say-On-Pay Shareholder Suits?
Client Alert Corporate & Securities Executive Compensation & Benefits Dodd Frank Resource Center November 19, 2012 Plaintiffs Firms Gaining Steam in New Wave of Say-On-Pay Shareholder Suits? By Sarah A.
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 34 Filed: 03/26/12 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:67
Case: 1:12-cv-00369 Document #: 34 Filed: 03/26/12 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:67 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION NATALIE GORDON, Derivatively on Behalf
More informationShareholder Derivative Suits After Negative Say-On-Pay Votes
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Shareholder Derivative Suits After Negative Say-On-Pay Votes Litigating Executive Compensation Challenges and Minimizing Exposure to Lawsuits WEDNESDAY,
More informationTHE NEW REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR REMITTANCE TRANSFERS UNDER THE DODD-FRANK ACT
Vol. 28 No. 6 June 2012 THE NEW REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR REMITTANCE TRANSFERS UNDER THE DODD-FRANK ACT The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued a final rule, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act,
More informationRevisiting Affiliated Ute: Back In Vogue In The 9th Circ.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Revisiting Affiliated Ute: Back In Vogue
More informationTHE RIGHT PROTECTION: MORE ON ADVANCEMENT AND INDEMNIFICATION
Vol. 41 No. 21 December 3, 2008 THE RIGHT PROTECTION: MORE ON ADVANCEMENT AND INDEMNIFICATION In three recent opinions, the Delaware Court of Chancery has addressed the scope of indemnification and advancement
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION NATALIE GORDON, Derivatively on Behalf ) of NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) WILLIAM M. GOODYEAR,
More informationDelaware Court Denies Motions to Dismiss in Two Shareholder Derivative Actions Challenging Timing of Stock Option Grants
February 2007 Delaware Court Denies Motions to Dismiss in Two Shareholder Derivative Actions Challenging Timing of Stock Option Grants By Kevin C. Logue, Barry G. Sher, Thomas A. Zaccaro and James W. Gilliam
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Case:-cv-0-SBA Document Filed// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ROBERT BOXER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs.
More informationRecent Delaware Corporate Governance Decisions. Paul D. Manca, Esquire Hogan & Hartson LLP Washington, DC
APRIL 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent Delaware Corporate Governance Decisions Paul D. Manca, Esquire Hogan & Hartson LLP Washington, DC BUSINESS LAW AND GOVERNANCE PRACTICE GROUP In three separate decisions
More informationPost-Halliburton II Update: Eighth Circuit Denies Class Certification Based on Lack of Price Impact
April 2016 Follow @Paul_Hastings Post-Halliburton II Update: Eighth Circuit Denies Class Certification Based on Lack of Price Impact By Anthony Antonelli, Kevin P. Broughel, & Shahzeb Lari Introduction
More informationCase 1:11-cv RGA Document 50 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 568 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:11-cv-00217-RGA Document 50 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 568 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE KENNETH HOCH, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : BARBARA
More informationJOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN *
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY PRECLUSION IN SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP OCTOBER 11, 2007 The application of preclusion principles in shareholder
More informationDelaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code
Latham & Watkins Number 1467 February 13, 2013 Finance Department Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code Josef S. Athanas, Caroline
More informationEFiled: Mar :02PM EDT Transaction ID Case No CC IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EFiled: Mar 27 2009 7:02PM EDT Transaction ID 24415037 Case No. 4349-CC IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE --------------------------------------------------------------x IN RE THE DOW CHEMICAL
More informationDefendants Look for Broader Interpretation of Halliburton II
Defendants Look for Broader Interpretation of Halliburton II June 7, 2016 Robert L. Hickok hickokr@pepperlaw.com Gay Parks Rainville rainvilleg@pepperlaw.com Reprinted with permission from the June 7,
More informationCorporate Litigation: Standing to Bring Consumer Data Breach Claims
Corporate Litigation: Standing to Bring Consumer Data Breach Claims Joseph M. McLaughlin * Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP April 14, 2015 Security experts say that there are two types of companies in the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 10/2/14 Certified for Publication 10/27/14 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX DANNY JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, 2d Civil
More informationWilmington Update. Delaware Supreme Court and the Court of Chancery Offer Obligation Guidance for Financially Troubled Entities
www.pepperlaw.com Winter 2008 message from partner in charge This issue features recent Delaware corporate decisions that may affect corporate law cases across the county. If the onslaught of litigation
More informationBulk of Wells Fargo Shareholder Derivative Suit Survives Motions to Dismiss
December 4, 2017 Bulk of Wells Fargo Shareholder Derivative Suit Survives Motions to Dismiss On October 4, 2017, in In re Wells Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation, which concerns alleged
More informationCase 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:16-cv-00193-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE TIMOTHY J. PAGLIARA, v. Plaintiff, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice
Number 1312 April 4, 2012 Client Alert While the Second Circuit s formulation answers some questions about what transactions fall within the scope of Section 10(b), it also raises a host of new questions
More informationThe Supreme Court Rejects Liability of Customers, Suppliers and Other Secondary Actors in Private Securities Fraud Litigation
The Supreme Court Rejects Liability of Customers, Suppliers and Other Secondary Actors in Private Securities Fraud Litigation Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (In re Charter
More informationDIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY BANKRUPTCY STAYS OF LITIGATION AGAINST NON-DEBTORS JUNE 12, 2003 JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN S IMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY BANKRUPTCY STAYS OF LITIGATION AGAINST NON-DEBTORS JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP JUNE 12, 2003 Most courts have held the insured versus insured exclusion
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:10-cv-06264-PSG -AGR Document 18 Filed 12/09/10 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:355 CENTRAL DISTRICT F CALIFRNIA Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy K. Hernandez
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 937 September 22, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department The Local Controversy Exception to the Class Action Fairness Act Preston, Kaufman and Coffey An understanding
More informationCase5:13-md LHK Document129 Filed01/27/14 Page1 of 7
Case:-md-00-LHK Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 IN RE: GOOGLE INC. GMAIL LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case
More informationCase 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:13-cv-00317-WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MENG-LIN LIU, 13-CV-0317 (WHP) Plaintiff, ECF CASE - against - ORAL ARGUMENT
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 13-791 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JOHN J. MOORES, et al., Petitioners, v. DAVID HILDES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID AND KATHLEEN HILDES 1999 CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST
More information"The Business Judgment Rule, Plain and Simple"
Wisconsin Courts Reject Heightened Scrutiny in Mergers and Acquisitions Litigation Contributed by Richard B. Kapnick, Courtney A. Rosen and Veena Gursahani, Sidley Austin LLP Other than Delaware, very
More informationJONES DAY COMMENTARY
March 2010 JONES DAY COMMENTARY In re Sprint Nextel Corp. : The Seventh Circuit Says No to Hedging in Class Actions The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ( CAFA ) was perhaps the most favorable legal development
More informationNinth Circuit Finds No Private Right of Action Under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
December 16, 2008 Ninth Circuit Finds No Private Right of Action Under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act On December 11, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision
More informationCase: 2:17-cv WOB-CJS Doc #: 52 Filed: 07/23/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 1500
Case: 2:17-cv-00045-WOB-CJS Doc #: 52 Filed: 07/23/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 1500 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-45 (WOB-CJS)
More informationSHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND DEMAND FUTILITY
CORPORATE LITIGATION: SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND DEMAND FUTILITY JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP August 13, 2015 A cardinal precept of Delaware law is that directors, rather
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-lab-bgs Document Filed // PageID. Page of 0 0 DAVID F. MCDOWELL (CA SBN 0) DMcDowell@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 0 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 00- Telephone:..00 Facsimile:..
More informationTop 10 Delaware Corporate Opinions of 2008
Top 10 Delaware Corporate Opinions of 2008 2008 was marred by economic downturns, financial scandals and collapses, but the influence and importance of Delaware corporate law has remained stable. With
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
0 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Kenneth R. Chiate (Bar No. 0) kenchiate@quinnemanuel.com Kristen Bird (Bar No. ) kristenbird@quinnemanuel.com Jeffrey N. Boozell (Bar No. 0) jeffboozell@quinnemanuel.com
More informationKCC Class Action Digest March 2019
KCC Class Action Digest March 2019 Class Action Services KCC Class Action Services partners with counsel to deliver high-quality, cost-effective notice and settlement administration services. Recognized
More informationCase3:11-cv EMC Document70 Filed03/06/14 Page1 of 43
Case3:11-cv-03176-EMC Document70 Filed03/06/14 Page1 of 43 Case3:11-cv-03176-EMC Document70 Filed03/06/14 Page2 of 43 Case3:11-cv-03176-EMC Document70 Filed03/06/14 Page3 of 43 Case3:11-cv-03176-EMC Document70
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3178 IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants
More informationIN THE COURTS. Issue Preclusion in Multijurisdictional Shareholder Derivative Litigation. Shareholder Derivative Background Litigation
IN THE COURTS Volume 27 Number 8, August 2013 Issue Preclusion in Multijurisdictional Shareholder Derivative Litigation By Mark A. Perry and Geoffrey C. Weien If one court dismisses a shareholder derivative
More informationCase 8:13-mc Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 Page 1 of 9. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division
Case 8:13-mc-00584 Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division CARGYLE BROWN SOLOMON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Case No.: PWG-13-2436
More informationCase3:09-cv SI Document58 Filed11/12/10 Page1 of 7
Case:0-cv-0-SI Document Filed//0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 MICHAEL BROWN, v. Plaintiff, FREDERIC H MOLL, et al., Defendants. / No. C 0-0 SI ORDER
More informationPost-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Post-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STERLING LAUREL REALTY, LLC, individually and derivatively on behalf of LAUREL
More informationExpanding DCHRA Beyond DC Employment
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Expanding DCHRA Beyond DC Employment Law360,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS PENSION FUND, Plaintiffs, v. DOUGLAS W. BROYLES, MARVIN D. BURKETT, STEPHEN L. DOMENIK, DR. NORMAN GODINHO, RONALD
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case:-cv-000-LHK Document Filed0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Cz 00 ALEXANDER LIU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
More informationJ S - 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CASE NO. CV JST (FMOx) GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF.
Case :-cv-00-jls-fmo Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF vs. Plaintiffs, THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
0 0 John T. Jasnoch (0 jjasnoch@scott-scott.com SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP North Central Ave., th Floor Glendale, CA 0 Telephone: /- Facsimile: /- Francis A. Bottini, Jr. ( fbottini@bottinilaw.com
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 3:11-cv-30200-MAP Document 15 Filed 07/25/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS FRANK HOLT and ) NORMAN HART, derivatively ) on behalf of SMITH & ) WESSON
More informationA Matter of Opinion: Parsing the Independent Auditor's Report in the Context of Omnicare
Accounting Policy & Practice Report: News Archive 2016 Latest Developments Analysis & Perspective AUDITOR LIABILITY A Matter of Opinion: Parsing the Independent Auditor's Report in the Context of Omnicare
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, LOUIS V. SCHOOLER and FIRST FINANCIAL PLANNING CORPORATION, dba Western Financial
More informationCase 1:14-cv FDS Document 24 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ) ) Civil No. v.
Case 1:14-cv-11651-FDS Document 24 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS DAVID BIRNBACH, Plaintiff, Civil No. v. 14-11651-FDS ANTENNA SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant.
More informationFifth Circuit Rejects Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Fraudulent Transfer Claims
Fifth Circuit Rejects Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Fraudulent Transfer Claims By Michael L. Cook * The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has rejected a trustee s breach of fiduciary claims against
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Goodard v. Google, Inc. Doc. Dockets.Justia.com 0 0 KAREN JOHNSON-MCKEWAN (SBN 0) kjohnson-mckewan@orrick.com NANCY E. HARRIS (SBN 0) nharris@orrick.com NIKKA N. RAPKIN (SBN 0) nrapkin@orrick.com ORRICK,
More informationEmery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, New York (Andrew G. Celli, Jr. of counsel), for appellants.
Lichtenstein v Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 2014 NY Slip Op 06242 Decided on September 18, 2014 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary
More informationCase 1:11-cv WYD-BNB Document 48 Filed 02/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:11-cv-02142-WYD-BNB Document 48 Filed 02/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20 Civil Action No. 11-cv-02142-WYD-BNB IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO CHARLES D. SWANSON,
More informationAlert Inside. Senator Dodd to Introduce Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2009
Inside Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2009 Introduction Executive Say on Pay Golden Parachutes Committee Independence Consultant and Advisor Independence Standards Enhanced Disclosures Clawbacks
More informationIn their initial and amended complaints, the plaintiffs, who are beneficiaries of
Cunningham v. Cornell University et al Doc. 198 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------x CASEY CUNNINGHAM, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 5, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01289-CV WEST FORK ADVISORS, LLC, Appellant V. SUNGARD CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC AND SUNGARD
More informationCase 3:11-cv AC Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 21 Page ID#: 716
Case 3:11-cv-00633-AC Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 21 Page ID#: 716 ROBERT J. MCGAUGHEY, OSB #800787 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. MCGAUGHEY 805 SW Broadway, Suite 2440 Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone:
More informationPre-Certification Communications with Putative Class Members March 25, 2017
American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law: 2017 Midwinter Meeting of the Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee Introduction Pre-Certification Communications with Putative
More informationCase: 1:11-cv TSB Doc #: 3 Filed: 07/29/11 Page: 1 of 30 PAGEID #: 85 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:11-cv-00451-TSB Doc #: 3 Filed: 07/29/11 Page: 1 of 30 PAGEID #: 85 NECA-IBEW PENSION FUND (THE DECATUR PLAN), Derivatively on Behalf of Cincinnati Bell Inc., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
Case :-cv-000-wqh-bgs Document Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 0 SEAN K. WHITE, v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; EQUIFAX, INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC.; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; TRANSUNION,
More informationThe Challenges For CEA Price Manipulation Plaintiffs
The Challenges For CEA Price Manipulation Plaintiffs By Mark Young, Jonathan Marcus, Gary Rubin and Theodore Kneller, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP Law360, New York (April 26, 2017, 5:23 PM EDT)
More informationForward Momentum: Trulia Continues to Impact Resolution of Deal Litigation in Delaware and Beyond
Forward Momentum: Trulia Continues to Impact Resolution of Deal Litigation in Delaware and Beyond Contributors Edward B. Micheletti, Partner Jenness E. Parker, Counsel Bonnie W. David, Associate > See
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : ORDER
Case 115-cv-02818-AT Document 18 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION BATASKI BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
More informationNational Health Plan Corp v. Teamsters Local 469
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-16-2014 National Health Plan Corp v. Teamsters Local 469 Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationNot So Basic: Supreme Court to Revisit the Fraud-on-the Market Presumption of Reliance
Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Number 1617 November 27, 2013 Not So Basic: Supreme Court to Revisit the Fraud-on-the Market Presumption of Reliance Parties to pending securities fraud class actions
More informationERISA Stock Drop Cases Since Dudenhoeffer: The Pleading Standard Has Been Raised
ARTICLE ERISA Stock Drop Cases Since Dudenhoeffer: The Pleading Standard Has Been Raised By Joseph C. Faucher and Dylan D. Rudolph This article analyzes the Dudenhoeffer pleading standard and stock drop
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 209-cv-05262-PD Document 26 Filed 02/12/2010 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES REID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
More informationEighth Circuit Interprets Halliburton II
April 13, 2016 Eighth Circuit Interprets Halliburton II, Holding That Defendants Successfully Rebutted Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption of Reliance by Showing that the Alleged Misstatements Did Not Cause
More informationCase 1:16-cv RNS Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2017 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:16-cv-21221-RNS Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2017 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ANTHONY R. EDWARDS, et al., Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 16-21221-Civ-Scola
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,
Case :-cv-0-ajb-bgs Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 ROSE MARIE RENO and LARRY ANDERSON, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORINE SYLVIA CAVE, Plaintiff, v. DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-who ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No.,,
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THIS CAUSE, designated a complex business case by Order of the Chief Justice
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE DOUGLAS D. WHITNEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES M. WINSTON, EDWIN B. BORDEN, JR., RICHARD L. DAUGHERTY, ROBERT
More informationAnderson v. Coastal Communities at Ocean Ridge Plantation, Inc., 2011 NCBC 14.
Anderson v. Coastal Communities at Ocean Ridge Plantation, Inc., 2011 NCBC 14. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK 09 CVS 1042 ("Anderson" BERRY ANDERSON, et al.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CENTER CAPITAL CORPORATION v. PRA AVIATION, LLC et al Doc. 67 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CENTER CAPITAL CORP., : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : PRA
More informationIn Randolph v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company, several. Defendant Prevails in Privacy Case Where Data Theft Results in No Injury To Plaintiffs
Defendant Prevails in Privacy Case Where Data Theft Results in No Injury To Plaintiffs ALAN CHARLES RAUL AND ED MCNICHOLAS The recent data breach case of Randolph v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ORDER APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVING LEAD AND LIAISON COUNSEL
Case: 2:12-cv-00604-MHW-NMK Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/05/13 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 199 Alan Willis, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, V. Case No. 2:12 cv-604
More informationExecutive Compensation Alert
Executive Compensation Alert Inside Financial Reform Bills Passed Awaiting Reconciliation Introduction Executive Compensation Say on Pay Vote on Golden Parachutes Compensation Committee Independence Consultant
More informationCONGRESS MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO RULES GOVERNING CLASS ACTIONS
CLIENT MEMORANDUM CONGRESS MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO RULES GOVERNING CLASS ACTIONS Effective February 18, 2005, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ( CAFA ) makes significant changes to the rules
More informationDELAWARE CORPORATE. Westlaw Journal
Westlaw Journal DELAWARE CORPORATE Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 28, ISSUE 7 / OCTOBER 14, 2013 WHAT S INSIDE 41391436 GOING-PRIVATE BUYOUT 7 Appeal says
More informationHow the Supreme Court s Upcoming Halliburton Decision on the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption May Impact Securities Litigation
How the Supreme Court s Upcoming Halliburton Decision on the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption May Impact Securities Litigation In June, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether the fraud-on-the-market
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV M
Lewis v. Southwest Airlines Co Doc. 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JUSTIN LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
More informationSecurities Cases That Will Matter Most In 2019
Page 1 of 6 Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19th Street, 5th floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Securities Cases That Will Matter
More informationDELAWARE LAW DEVELOPMENTS: STOCK OPTION BACKDATING AND SPRING-LOADING
Vol. 40 No. 10 May 16, 2007 DELAWARE LAW DEVELOPMENTS: STOCK OPTION BACKDATING AND SPRING-LOADING In Recent Opinions, the Delaware Court of Chancery Has Denied Motions to Dismiss Stockholder Complaints
More informationCENTER FOR CAPITAL MARKETS COMPETITIVENESS
% CENTER FOR CAPITAL MARKETS COMPETITIVENESS TOM Qu1MN 1615 H STREET, NW VICE PRESIDENT WASHINGTON, DC 20062-2000 (202) 463-5540 tquaadman@uschamber. corn Mr. Steve Harvey Head of Business Institutional
More informationCase: 1:11-cv TSB Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/22/11 Page: 1 of 33 PAGEID #: 478 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case: 1:11-cv-00451-TSB Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/22/11 Page: 1 of 33 PAGEID #: 478 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO NECA-IBEW PENSION FUND (THE DECATUR PLAN, Derivatively on Behalf of
More informationCase 2:09-cv CMR Document Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 24 EXHIBIT A-1
Case 2:09-cv-04730-CMR Document 184-2 Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 24 EXHIBIT A-1 Case 2:09-cv-04730-CMR Document 184-2 Filed 03/14/14 Page 2 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION THE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE FUNDS, On Behalf of Itself and Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, CFC INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
More informationCORPORATE LITIGATION. Enforcing Exclusive Forum Selection Clauses in Corporate Organizational Documents. By Peter L. Welsh and Martin J.
Volume 28 Number 3, March 2014 CORPORATE LITIGATION Enforcing Exclusive Forum Selection Clauses in Corporate Organizational Documents Vice Chancellor Laster s recent decision in Edgen Group, Inc. v. Genoud
More informationCase 1:16-cv APM Document 16 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-01598-APM Document 16 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) JASON VOGEL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 16-cv-1598 (APM) ) GO DADDY GROUP,
More informationCase 1:14-cv PAC Document 27 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 11 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X CENTRAL LABORERS PENSION FUND and STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION FUND, derivatively
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 Brent H. Blakely (SBN ) bblakely@blakelylawgroup.com BLAKELY LAW GROUP Parkview Avenue, Suite 0 Manhattan Beach, California 0 Telephone: (0) -00 Facsimile:
More informationCase: 3:18-cv JJH Doc #: 40 Filed: 01/08/19 1 of 6. PageID #: 296
Case: 3:18-cv-00984-JJH Doc #: 40 Filed: 01/08/19 1 of 6. PageID #: 296 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Steven R. Sullivan, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-984
More informationCOURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. February 14, 2013
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EFiled: Feb 14 2013 05:38PM EST Transaction ID 49544107 Case No. 8145 VCN JOHN W. NOBLE 417 SOUTH STATE STREET VICE CHANCELLOR DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 TELEPHONE:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 12-CV-5162 ORDER
Case 5:12-cv-05162-SOH Document 146 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2456 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
More information