Search

There were 166 de-SPAC transactions between 2019and July 15, 2021, and 23 of those transactions resulted in privatesecurities litigation.14 SPAC-related litigation can also involve unique exposures. Conclusion The full implications to the D&O market caused by the suddenincrease in SPAC popularity by investors, target companies,and, of course, securities litigation plaintiffs are yet to be seen.The insurance coverage issues raised by the unique process ofthe SPAC are largely untested. SPACs, or special purpose acquisition companies, haveexploded in popularity in recent years as an alternative tothe traditional initial public offering (IPO).These "blankcheck" companies, which raise money through an IPO for thespecific purpose of using that money to later acquire an existing,privately held business, are viewed as reducing some of the costsof going public and allowing private companies quicker access topublic markets. Because a de-SPAC transaction is anticipated at theoutset of a SPAC, tail coverage is typically negotiated with theinitial SPAC D&O policy. [Extracted from the article]

The last few years have seen a steady rise in the number of securities class action lawsuits. The recent increase in securities class action filings has been driven, at least in significant part, by two types of lawsuits: merger-objection and event-driven securities litigation. Of the 341 securities class actions filed between January and September 2019, 204 were more traditional lawsuits alleging violations of U.S. securities laws.16 This figure suggests a trend to a year-end total of 272 standard securities lawsuits, which is, by historical standards, an extraordinary number of securities lawsuit filings and would be higher than the annual total number of securities lawsuit filings in any year during the period 2003 to 2015. Event-driven securities lawsuits have a higher dismissal rate than more traditional securities lawsuits, with a dismissal rate approaching 60 percent.[28] This, of course, means that 40 percent of event-driven securities filings survive a motion to dismiss. [Extracted from the article]

The last few years have seen a steady rise in the number of securities class action lawsuits. In 2018, securities lawsuit filings reached their highest level since 2001.[3] New filings have doubled since 2014, when there were 218 federal court securities class action filings, and filings had been relatively stable since 2007. Of the 341 securities class actions filed between January and September 2019, 204 were more traditional lawsuits alleging violations of U.S. securities laws.[16] This figure suggests a trend to a year-end total of 272 standard securities lawsuits, which is, by historical standards, an extraordinary number of securities lawsuit filings and would be higher than the annual total number of securities lawsuit filings in any year during the period 2003 to 2015. Event-driven securities lawsuits have a higher dismissal rate than more traditional securities lawsuits, with a dismissal rate approaching 60 percent.[28] This, of course, means that 40 percent of event-driven securities filings survive a motion to dismiss. [Extracted from the article]

The article highlights developments in the field of alternative dispute resolution in the U.S. Topics discussed include viability of class-wide arbitration following the Supreme Court's rulings in Lamps Plus and Stolt-Nielsen v. Varela, scope and application of the Interstate Commerce Exception to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and enforcement of agreements by nonsignatories to contract.

The article addresses developments in alternative dispute resolution in the U.S. Topics discussed include the decision of the Supreme Court to limit classwide arbitration in the case Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, confirmation of the Supreme Court that the interstate transportation workers exception to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to employees and independent contractors in the case, New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, and grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award.

The article discusses updates on alternative dispute resolution and arbitration-related decisions issued by U.S. federal and state courts. Topics explored include the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provisions involved in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the scope of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exemption granted in Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., and the availability of class-action arbitration under a contract addressed in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela.

The article discusses several alternative dispute resolution decisions issued by U.S. federal and state courts between October 1, 2016, and September 30, 2017. It highlights sports arbitration and appellate court rulings addressing efforts by nonsignatories seeking to enforce contractual arbitration provisions in contracts executed by other entities.

The article presents decision of courts for the award of attorney fees and exemplary damages by arbitrators in cases involving arbitration enforcement and class proceedings in the U.S. Cases include Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds International Corp., and AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion.

The article discusses alternative dispute resolution decisions issued by U.S. federal and state courts between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2016. Topics discussed include scope of judicial review for challenges to arbitration rulings, sports arbitration and standard of review is particularly deferential under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and the terms of the collective bargaining agreements and pre-hearing depositions under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

The Brief is the American Bar Association's (ABA's) magazine for lawyers practicing tort and insurance law. It is published quarterly by ABA Publishing for the Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section (TIPS) of the ABA. TIPS brings together plaintiffs attorneys, defense attorneys, and insurance and corporate counsel for the exchange of information and ideas. [Extracted from the article]

The Brief is the American Bar Association's magazine for lawyers practicing tort and insurance law. It is published quarterly by ABA Publishing for the Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section (TIPS) of the ABA. The ideas expressed in The Briefs articles do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section or the ABA and should not be so construed. [Extracted from the article]