Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
They're Baaaaack. Disclosure-Based 14(A) Claims Making a Ghostly Return
Following the Delaware Chancery Court's ruling in In re Trulia, Inc., C.A. No. 10020-CB (Jan. 22, 2016), that effectively closed the door to 14(a) disclosure-based settlements in Delaware state court, federal courts saw an influx of 14(a) "merger objection" litigation. More often than not, these suits, while a nuisance and often meritless, present a nominal exposure. The suits are quickly dismissed following the company's issuance of a supplemental proxy with additional disclosures and the parties negotiate a mootness fee. The transaction closes and all parties move on — or so we thought. An emerging trend suggests that exposure to 14(a) claims may coming back from the near dead.
Recently, the plaintiffs' bar has breathed new life into 14(a) claims by coupling them with a cause of action for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act Section 10(b) in post-stock-drop litigation. While the underlying circumstances may differ, generally, following the completion of a merger, the go-forward company makes an adverse disclosure that purportedly causes the go-forward company's stock to drop. What makes this disclosure different and gives rise to not only a 10(b) claim but also a 14(a) claim, is that the disclosure relates to information that was referenced in the proxy statement. For instance, the disclosure may relate to the value of projects or other assets acquired in the merger or the performance of a pre-merger operating unit or the accounting of a pre-merger contract.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.