When an M&A deal closes, is it done? Not always. More and more disputes are arising after closing, which results in lost time and expense for both buyers and sellers as they realize they don’t actually have a done deal. Not all disputes after closing can be avoided, but their effects can be minimized with the right due diligence, transparency in the process, and knowing the mechanisms for resolving them efficiently.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Samir A. Gandhihttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngSamir A. Gandhi2024-01-09 10:06:002024-01-09 10:07:00Is Your M&A Contract Vulnerable to Post-Closing Litigation? We Break it Down
In a significant decision the week before the Christmas holiday, the Delaware Supreme Court, sitting en banc, reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery’s dismissal of Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement Fund v. Collis et al. (“Lebanon”), reinstating stockholder derivative claims against the directors of AmerisourceBergen Corporation arising out of the Company’s wholesale distribution of prescription opioids in the United States. Interested readers can view our blog’s prior discussion of the Court of Chancery’s dismissal here.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Vincent J. Margiottahttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngVincent J. Margiotta2024-01-04 09:05:352024-01-03 16:10:14A Judicial Notice That Judicial Notice Has Its Limits
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/12/MN-18360_Updated-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-imagery_833x606_5.jpg606833Elizabeth Y. Austinhttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngElizabeth Y. Austin2023-12-26 10:12:542024-02-06 12:55:57Unfettered Does Not Mean Unlimited: Two New Delaware Decisions Shed Light on the Limitations of Inspection Rights
Sidley is pleased to share the December 2023 issue of Sidley Perspectives on M&A and Corporate Governance, a quarterly newsletter designed to keep you current on what we consider to be the most important legal developments involving M&A and corporate governance matters.
Rapid rulemaking and aggressive enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), combined with legislative, judicial, and regulatory developments, have created new requirements and expectations for U.S. public companies. As we approach year end, such companies might consider taking the following actions in 2024: (more…)
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Sonia Gupta Barroshttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngSonia Gupta Barros2023-12-14 09:00:172023-12-14 09:13:39Action Items for U.S. Public Companies to Consider for 2024
In 2024, the Supreme Court will be looking once again at the federal securities laws in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., Dkt No. 22-1165. The question presented to the Court this time is: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit erred in holding that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement. The Court thus is primed to resolve a split between the Second Circuit and three other courts—the Third, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits—and will contend with the reach of the court-created implied private right of action to enforce Section 10(b). (more…)
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/12/MN-18360_Updated-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-imagery_833x606_33.jpg606833Jaime A. Bartletthttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJaime A. Bartlett2023-12-06 11:00:292024-02-06 12:54:59Petitioners Make Their Case That Pure Omissions Are Not Actionable Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.
Naming a registered investment company will become more challenging now that the Securities and Exchange Commission has significantly broadened the scope of the rule governing fund names. Moreover, the SEC estimates that when the Names Rule goes into effect, three out of four registered funds will be subject to the new requirements.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Jay G. Barishttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJay G. Baris2023-11-28 11:42:042023-12-01 11:14:16What’s in a Name, Part II
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
Is Your M&A Contract Vulnerable to Post-Closing Litigation? We Break it Down
When an M&A deal closes, is it done? Not always. More and more disputes are arising after closing, which results in lost time and expense for both buyers and sellers as they realize they don’t actually have a done deal. Not all disputes after closing can be avoided, but their effects can be minimized with the right due diligence, transparency in the process, and knowing the mechanisms for resolving them efficiently.
(more…)
Samir A. Gandhi
New York
sgandhi@sidley.com
Robert S. Velevis
Dallas
rvelevis@sidley.com
Frank J. Favia, Jr.
Alexis Cooper
Chicago
acooper@sidley.com
A Judicial Notice That Judicial Notice Has Its Limits
In a significant decision the week before the Christmas holiday, the Delaware Supreme Court, sitting en banc, reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery’s dismissal of Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement Fund v. Collis et al. (“Lebanon”), reinstating stockholder derivative claims against the directors of AmerisourceBergen Corporation arising out of the Company’s wholesale distribution of prescription opioids in the United States. Interested readers can view our blog’s prior discussion of the Court of Chancery’s dismissal here.
(more…)
Vincent J. Margiotta
New York
vmargiotta@sidley.com
Andrew W. Stern
New York
astern@sidley.com
Unfettered Does Not Mean Unlimited: Two New Delaware Decisions Shed Light on the Limitations of Inspection Rights
As this blog has highlighted, a number of judicial decisions on statutory demands to inspect books and records under Delaware’s Section 220 in recent years have emphasized the broad scope of types of materials to which courts will permit access, and the consequences faced by companies that have attempted to restrict access. Two recent Delaware Court of Chancery decisions provide a welcome reminder of the limitations on the scope of the inspection right. These cases are Jose Mellado, D.M.D. v. ACPDO Parent Inc. and Greenlight Capital Offshore Partners, LTD. v. Brighthouse Financial, Inc.
(more…)
Elizabeth Y. Austin
Chicago
laustin@sidley.com
Rachel A. Rein
Sidley Perspectives on M&A and Corporate Governance
Sidley is pleased to share the December 2023 issue of Sidley Perspectives on M&A and Corporate Governance, a quarterly newsletter designed to keep you current on what we consider to be the most important legal developments involving M&A and corporate governance matters.
(more…)
Enhanced Scrutiny Contributors
delawarelit@sidley.com
Action Items for U.S. Public Companies to Consider for 2024
Rapid rulemaking and aggressive enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), combined with legislative, judicial, and regulatory developments, have created new requirements and expectations for U.S. public companies. As we approach year end, such companies might consider taking the following actions in 2024: (more…)
Sonia Gupta Barros
Washington, D.C.
sbarros@sidley.com
Beth E. Berg
Chicago
bberg@sidley.com
Paul L. Choi
Chicago
pchoi@sidley.com
Samir A. Gandhi
New York
sgandhi@sidley.com
John P. Kelsh
Chicago
jkelsh@sidley.com
Claire H. Holland
Chicago
cholland@sidley.com
Petitioners Make Their Case That Pure Omissions Are Not Actionable Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.
In 2024, the Supreme Court will be looking once again at the federal securities laws in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., Dkt No. 22-1165. The question presented to the Court this time is: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit erred in holding that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement. The Court thus is primed to resolve a split between the Second Circuit and three other courts—the Third, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits—and will contend with the reach of the court-created implied private right of action to enforce Section 10(b). (more…)
Jaime A. Bartlett
San Francisco
jbartlett@sidley.com
What’s in a Name, Part II
Naming a registered investment company will become more challenging now that the Securities and Exchange Commission has significantly broadened the scope of the rule governing fund names. Moreover, the SEC estimates that when the Names Rule goes into effect, three out of four registered funds will be subject to the new requirements.
(more…)
Jay G. Baris
New York
jbaris@sidley.com
Louisa Kiu
Boston
lkiu@sidley.com
Categories
Archives
Meet the Team
Andrew W. Stern
astern@sidley.com
Charlotte K. Newell
cnewell@sidley.com
Elizabeth Y. Austin
laustin@sidley.com
Jaime A. Bartlett
jbartlett@sidley.com
Jim Ducayet
jducayet@sidley.com
Yolanda C. Garcia
ygarcia@sidley.com
James Heyworth
jheyworth@sidley.com
Alex J. Kaplan
ajkaplan@sidley.com
Jodi E. Lopez
jlopez@sidley.com
Jon Muenz
jmuenz@sidley.com
Ian M. Ross
iross@sidley.com
Hille R. Sheppard
hsheppard@sidley.com
Heather Benzmiller Sultanian
hsultanian@sidley.com
Robert S. Velevis
rvelevis@sidley.com
Robin E. Wechkin
rwechkin@sidley.com