Discussion of Key Issues in Securities & Governance Litigation
I am grateful for the enthusiastic feedback I’ve received on my three-part blog post “Who is Winning the Securities Class Action War—Plaintiffs or Defendants?” I especially appreciate the time Kevin LaCroix took to write a post addressing my post in his leading blog, The D&O Diary.
With the benefit of 25 years’ experience…
This is the third of a three-part post that analyzes why plaintiffs are winning the securities class action war and what defendants can do about it.
At stake is a system of securities litigation that sets up one side or the other to win more cases in the long term. It has real-world consequences for…
This is the second of a three-part post evaluating who is winning the securities class action war.
Part I explained that this war is not just a scorecard of wins and losses, but rather a fight for strategic positioning—about achieving a system of securities litigation that sets up plaintiffs or defendants to win more cases…
The securities class action war is about far more than the height of the pleading hurdles plaintiffs must clear, the scorecard of motions to dismiss won and lost, or median settlement amounts. It is a fight for strategic positioning—about achieving a system of securities litigation that sets up one side or the other to win…
The villain in the fight against securities class actions is the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988 in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). Without Basic, the thinking goes, a plaintiff could not maintain a securities class action, and without securities class actions, executives could…
The history of securities and corporate governance litigation is full of wishes about the law that we later regret (or will), or are happy were not granted. Many of these are not obvious—and some will surprise people. From certain case-by-case tactical decisions such as establishment of special litigation committees, to the (failed) attempt to abolish…
The fifth of my “5 Wishes for Securities Litigation Defense” (April 30, 2016 post) is to move securities class action damages expert reports and discovery ahead of fact discovery. This simple change would allow the defendants and their D&O insurers to understand the real economics of cases that survive a motion to dismiss,…
In combination with the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 129 A.3d 884 (Del. Ch. 2016), Judge Posner’s blistering opinion In re Walgreen Company Stockholder Litigation, 2016 WL 4207962 (7th Cir. Aug. 10, 2016), may well close the door on disclosure-only settlements in shareholder challenges to mergers. …
I am committed to helping shape a system for securities litigation defense that helps directors and officers get through securities litigation safely and efficiently, without losing their serenity or dignity, and without facing any real risk of paying any personal funds.
But we are actually moving in the opposite direction of this goal, and unless…
In 2015, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act* turned twenty years old.
Over my career as a securities litigator, I’ve seen both sides of the securities-litigation divide that the Reform Act created. In the first part of my career, I witnessed the figurative skid marks in front of courthouses, as lawyers raced to the courthouse…