On June 1, 2023, the majority of an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit found that Gap Inc.’s forum selection clause does not violate the anti-waiver provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or Delaware law, entrenching its split with the Seventh Circuit’s circuit ruling on the same questions and ensuring that the enforcement of forum selection clauses across jurisdictions will remain unsettled for the foreseeable future.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/05/MN-18360_Updated-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-imagery_833x606_11.jpg606833Jaime A. Bartletthttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJaime A. Bartlett2023-06-08 09:04:492024-02-06 12:42:09The Saga Continues: Part II
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently reminded litigants of the “fundamental right . . . to an open court system.” Minnie Sarwal v. Nephrosant, Inc., C.A. No. 2023-0222-BWD (Del Ch. May 11, 2023). The Court’s ruling in Sarwal, as well as another recent decision, serve as a strong reminder that litigants should not presume information will be kept confidential, no matter how sensitive it may be. If a party cannot demonstrate a particularized harm from disclosure that outweighs the public interest in accessing the information, the Court of Chancery will not permit confidential treatment.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Jim Ducayethttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJim Ducayet2023-06-06 11:10:092023-09-08 10:05:30The Presumption of Public Access: From Internal Investigations to Arbitration Agreements, Delaware Courts Disfavor Confidentiality
Chancellor McCormick, of the Delaware Court of Chancery, recently was presented with the following question: If an indemnification provision in a purchase agreement clearly requires that the indemnifying party be permitted to participate in the defense of third party claims, is it a breach not to allow that participation? It turns out that, despite a bit of creative contractual interpretation, the answer is “yes.”
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Jon Muenzhttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJon Muenz2023-05-31 09:04:332023-09-08 10:06:05No Participation Trophy: Court of Chancery Shifts Fees For Failure To Allow Indemnifying Seller to Participate In Defense
To help navigate increasingly complex corporate governance challenges, a recent report by the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) Commission on The Future of the American Board highlights areas of focus for boards in 2023 and beyond.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/05/MN-18360_Updated-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-imagery_833x606_27.jpg606833Holly J. Gregoryhttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngHolly J. Gregory2023-05-24 09:01:062023-09-08 10:06:38Future-Proofing the Board of Directors
Earlier this month, Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a decision regarding an unsettled question of Delaware corporate law: whether an uncoerced and fully informed vote of disinterested stockholders may ratify and defeat a post-close claim seeking to enjoin certain governance measures and alleged entrenchment devices negotiated by a company’s board as part of a transaction. The court concluded that such a vote, known commonly as “Corwin cleansing,” does not apply to post-close claims for injunctive relief under Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. The court’s decision, at least for now, will have immediate significance for company boards and their advisors when negotiating transactions or stockholder agreements that include measures that may be characterized as defensive or entrenching existing management or directors.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Andrew W. Sternhttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngAndrew W. Stern2023-05-23 09:01:192023-09-08 10:07:15Chancery Cancels Corwin for Post-Close Claims for Injunctive Relief
In a May 12, 2023 opinion following trial and post-trial argument, the Delaware Court of Chancery found for defendants Oracle founder Larry Ellison and CEO Safra Catz in In re Oracle Derivative Litigation, 2017-0337-SG, a shareholder derivative litigation case arising out of Oracle’s US$9.3 billion acquisition of NetSuite. The 10-day bench trial took place in July and August 2022 before Vice Chancellor Glasscock, and included two days of testimony by Catz and one day of testimony by Ellison, among other witnesses. The Court’s decision comes several months after plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal, following the post-trial argument, of then-defendant Renée James, the Chair of a Special Committee of the Oracle Board overseeing the acquisition.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/11/MN-18360_Updated-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-imagery_833x606_17.jpg606833Sara B. Brodyhttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngSara B. Brody2023-05-18 10:26:322023-09-08 10:14:10Potential Control Does Not Equal Actual Control: Business Judgment Rule Protects Oracle-Netsuite Transaction
Securities class actions against life sciences companies are generally second-order problems. The first-order problem is a business or regulatory setback that, when disclosed by the company or a third party, is followed by a stock price drop. Following the decline, plaintiffs’ class action attorneys search the company’s previous public statements for inconsistencies between past positive comments and the current negative development. In most cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys then seek to show that any arguable inconsistency amounts to fraud—that is, they will claim that the earlier statement was knowingly or recklessly false or misleading. When a company makes the challenged statement in a public offering document (that is, a registration statement or prospectus), plaintiffs need to show that the statement was materially false or misleading, but not that it was made with scienter, i.e., the requisite state of mind.
https://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Robin E. Wechkinhttps://ma-litigation.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngRobin E. Wechkin2023-05-17 09:30:042023-09-08 10:15:06Securities Litigation Against Life Sciences Companies: Eleven Takeaways from 2022
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
The Saga Continues: Part II
On June 1, 2023, the majority of an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit found that Gap Inc.’s forum selection clause does not violate the anti-waiver provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or Delaware law, entrenching its split with the Seventh Circuit’s circuit ruling on the same questions and ensuring that the enforcement of forum selection clauses across jurisdictions will remain unsettled for the foreseeable future.
(more…)
Jaime A. Bartlett
San Francisco
jbartlett@sidley.com
Tyler Baylis
San Francisco
tbaylis@sidley.com
The Presumption of Public Access: From Internal Investigations to Arbitration Agreements, Delaware Courts Disfavor Confidentiality
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently reminded litigants of the “fundamental right . . . to an open court system.” Minnie Sarwal v. Nephrosant, Inc., C.A. No. 2023-0222-BWD (Del Ch. May 11, 2023). The Court’s ruling in Sarwal, as well as another recent decision, serve as a strong reminder that litigants should not presume information will be kept confidential, no matter how sensitive it may be. If a party cannot demonstrate a particularized harm from disclosure that outweighs the public interest in accessing the information, the Court of Chancery will not permit confidential treatment.
(more…)
Jim Ducayet
Chicago
jducayet@sidley.com
Caitlin Fernandez Zamora
No Participation Trophy: Court of Chancery Shifts Fees For Failure To Allow Indemnifying Seller to Participate In Defense
Chancellor McCormick, of the Delaware Court of Chancery, recently was presented with the following question: If an indemnification provision in a purchase agreement clearly requires that the indemnifying party be permitted to participate in the defense of third party claims, is it a breach not to allow that participation? It turns out that, despite a bit of creative contractual interpretation, the answer is “yes.”
(more…)
Jon Muenz
New York
jmuenz@sidley.com
Future-Proofing the Board of Directors
(more…)
Holly J. Gregory
New York
holly.gregory@sidley.com
Chancery Cancels Corwin for Post-Close Claims for Injunctive Relief
Earlier this month, Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a decision regarding an unsettled question of Delaware corporate law: whether an uncoerced and fully informed vote of disinterested stockholders may ratify and defeat a post-close claim seeking to enjoin certain governance measures and alleged entrenchment devices negotiated by a company’s board as part of a transaction. The court concluded that such a vote, known commonly as “Corwin cleansing,” does not apply to post-close claims for injunctive relief under Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. The court’s decision, at least for now, will have immediate significance for company boards and their advisors when negotiating transactions or stockholder agreements that include measures that may be characterized as defensive or entrenching existing management or directors.
(more…)
Andrew W. Stern
New York
astern@sidley.com
Vincent J. Margiotta
New York
vmargiotta@sidley.com
Potential Control Does Not Equal Actual Control: Business Judgment Rule Protects Oracle-Netsuite Transaction
In a May 12, 2023 opinion following trial and post-trial argument, the Delaware Court of Chancery found for defendants Oracle founder Larry Ellison and CEO Safra Catz in In re Oracle Derivative Litigation, 2017-0337-SG, a shareholder derivative litigation case arising out of Oracle’s US$9.3 billion acquisition of NetSuite. The 10-day bench trial took place in July and August 2022 before Vice Chancellor Glasscock, and included two days of testimony by Catz and one day of testimony by Ellison, among other witnesses. The Court’s decision comes several months after plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal, following the post-trial argument, of then-defendant Renée James, the Chair of a Special Committee of the Oracle Board overseeing the acquisition.
(more…)
Sara B. Brody
San Francisco, Palo Alto
sbrody@sidley.com
Jaime A. Bartlett
San Francisco
jbartlett@sidley.com
Matthew J. Dolan
Palo Alto
mdolan@sidley.com
Stephen Chang
San Francisco
stephen.chang@sidley.com
Chaddy Georges
San Francisco
cgeorges@sidley.com
Jennifer H. Lee
San Francisco
jhlee@sidley.com
Securities Litigation Against Life Sciences Companies: Eleven Takeaways from 2022
Securities class actions against life sciences companies are generally second-order problems. The first-order problem is a business or regulatory setback that, when disclosed by the company or a third party, is followed by a stock price drop. Following the decline, plaintiffs’ class action attorneys search the company’s previous public statements for inconsistencies between past positive comments and the current negative development. In most cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys then seek to show that any arguable inconsistency amounts to fraud—that is, they will claim that the earlier statement was knowingly or recklessly false or misleading. When a company makes the challenged statement in a public offering document (that is, a registration statement or prospectus), plaintiffs need to show that the statement was materially false or misleading, but not that it was made with scienter, i.e., the requisite state of mind.
(more…)
Robin E. Wechkin
Seattle
rwechkin@sidley.com
Sarah A. Hemmendinger
San Francisco
shemmendinger@sidley.com
Sara B. Brody
San Francisco, Palo Alto
sbrody@sidley.com
Matthew J. Dolan
Palo Alto
mdolan@sidley.com
Francesca E. Brody
New York
fbrody@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