978 Search Results

December 5, 2019 |
Gibson Dunn Named Litigation Department of the Year and Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. Named Litigator of the Year

Gibson Dunn was named 2020 Litigation Department of the Year by The American Lawyer. The publication noted, “Gibson Dunn’s litigation department helped CNN’s Jim Acosta get his White House press credential reinstated, won a U.S. Supreme Court separation-of-powers decision, persuaded the high court to strike down a federal sports-betting ban, and played a major part in pushing the AT&T-Time Warner merger through, among other accomplishments.”  In addition, Los Angeles partner Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. was named Litigator of the Year, Grand Prize, recognizing that he was “at the center of some of the nation’s most closely watched cases on the First Amendment, the rule of law, privacy and more.” This is Gibson Dunn’s fourth win in the last six of The American Lawyer’s biennial “Litigation Department of the Year” competitions and the sixth time in a row that Gibson Dunn has been a finalist — both unprecedented achievements. The award was announced on December 4, 2019, and the firm will be profiled in the January issue.

November 20, 2019 |
Gibson Dunn Adds Leading Litigator Markus Rieder in Munich

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce that Markus Rieder will join the firm as a partner in the Munich office.  Currently a partner with Latham & Watkins, he will continue to practice in the areas of complex commercial litigation, commercial arbitration, and compliance and white collar defense at Gibson Dunn. “We are delighted to welcome Markus onboard,” said Ken Doran, Chairman and Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn.  “He has outstanding legal skills and an excellent reputation within the German litigation community.  Our Munich and Frankfurt offices are thriving, and the addition of Markus strengthens our  German litigation offering and complements our premiere litigation practice.” Ferdinand Fromholzer, Partner in Charge of the Munich office, said, “Markus is a savvy and seasoned litigator who focuses on high-stakes litigation and arbitration.  He has impressive academic credentials, a strong focus on international and multi-jurisdictional matters, and a stellar reputation in the market.  With his addition, we further enhance our German practice.” “Gibson Dunn has a world class litigation platform with a global footprint and strong local operations,” said Rieder.  “I am excited to join the firm and help to expand its premier litigation brand in Germany.” About Markus Rieder Rieder’s practice includes domestic and cross-border commercial litigation and domestic and international arbitration, as well as white collar and compliance matters.  He has substantial experience with clients in the automotive, industrial and manufacturing sectors. He joins Gibson Dunn from Latham & Watkins’ Munich office, where he has practiced since 2013.  From 2002 to 2013, he practiced with Shearman & Sterling in Munich.  Prior to that, he worked as in-house legal counsel for international litigation and corporate affairs with BMW AG. Rieder studied law at the University of Munich, where he obtained his doctorate in 2003.  He also earned his LLM from the University of Michigan in 1996.

November 13, 2019 |
New York Lengthens the Limitations Period for Public Water Suppliers to Sue for Alleged Water Contamination

Click for PDF Last week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a new measure lengthening the statute of limitations period for public water suppliers to sue for water contamination.[1] Supporters have characterized this as a “significant blow” to companies alleged to be polluters[2] because it could aid in suing to recover hundreds of millions of dollars for alleged contamination cleanup costs.[3] The new law will take effect immediately.[4] The Old Limitations Period Before last week, New York law set forth a three-year limitations period for claims to recover damages from latent effects of substance exposure, running from “the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when through the exercise of reasonable diligence such injury should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier.”[5] New York law also provided an independent one-year period (subject to conditions) if the plaintiff did not know the cause of its injuries during the initial three-year period.[6] Officials and environmental advocates criticized this standard as discouraging lawsuits by public water suppliers, in part because of a lag between contamination and discovery[7] and perceived ambiguity over when contamination allegedly occurred.[8] Moreover, prior court rulings applied the general rule that began the statute of limitations period when a “reasonably prudent water provider should have or could have brought the suit.”[9] In the context of public water suppliers alleging contamination, however, the general counsel for the Suffolk County Water Authority explained that such a rule makes it difficult “to know when they should commence the action.” For example, New York courts had held that discovery occurred when, “based upon an objective level of awareness of the dangers and consequences of the particular substance, ‘the injured party discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based.’”[10] “Thus, knowledge of both the ‘dangers and consequences’ posed by contamination and harmful impact” were required.[11] In light of such obstacles, lawmakers complained that it was difficult for public water suppliers to overcome statute of limitations defenses raised by polluters in many cases.”[12] The hurdles presented by the prior limitations period were evident in a recent Second Circuit decision affirming dismissal of claims brought by the Bethpage Water District.[13] The parties took divergent views on the application of New York law, with a company arguing that a “cause of action accrues when the water provider learns that the contamination threatens water quality to such an extent that remedial action must be promptly taken, even if the contamination has not yet reached the water source,” and the District arguing that the limitations period “does not accrue until contamination is actually detected in the water source itself.”[14] Rejecting the District’s argument, the Court dismissed the District’s claims because it had been “aware that the threat of contamination was sufficiently significant to warrant ‘immediate or specific remediation efforts.’”[15] The New Limitations Period The new measure amends the Civil Practice Law and Rules to create a new statute of limitations for actions brought by public water suppliers to recover damages from water contamination.[16] The period begins to run once contamination has been detected in a public water supply, rather than when the contamination occurred.[17] It also clarifies that the statute of limitations period runs from the latest of (1) when a test has detected contamination in the raw water of a well or plant intake sample point in excess of state or federal drinking water limits, or (2) the last action taken by a company contributing to the contamination.[18] “Polluters need to be held responsible for their actions and with this measure we are closing an unacceptable loophole that let them skate for far too long,” Governor Cuomo said in a statement.[19] “This law will equip public water authorities with a desperately needed tool to hold corporate polluters accountable for contaminating our drinking water and ensure these deep-pocketed polluters, not ratepayers, pay the costs of removing contaminants like 1,4-dioxane from our drinking water,” a legislation sponsor said.[20] Conclusion The new measure increases potential challenges for companies alleged to be contributors to contamination. By setting the limitations period to run from the date of the impact on the water supply, this measure lengthens the period in which public water suppliers may sue, and it clarifies certain instances in which discovery will trigger that period to run. Moreover, while the old limitations period will still apply for private plaintiffs,[21] this new measure will nevertheless increase the potential liability of companies faced with allegations that they have contributed to ground water contamination. Moving forward, companies and stakeholders may wish to account for the greater resulting uncertainty about their potential liability risk due to this statute.  _____________________________    [1]  https://www.nystateofpolitics.com/2019/11/173011/.    [2]   https://www.newsday.com/long-island/environment/water-treatment-pollutants-1-4-dioxane-1.31984977.    [3]   https://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/1-4-dioxane-cuomo-gaughran-1.38223403.    [4]   Click here.    [5]   See N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214-c.    [6]   Vincent C. Alexander, Practice Commentaries to C.P.L.R. 214-c (Westlaw 2019).    [7]   https://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/1-4-dioxane-cuomo-gaughran-1.38223403.    [8]   https://www.nystateofpolitics.com/2019/11/173011/; also click here.    [9]   https://www.newsday.com/long-island/environment/water-treatment-pollutants-1-4-dioxane-1.31984977. [10]   Bethpage Water Dist. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 884 F.3d 118, 125 (2018) (quoting MRI Broadway Rental, Inc. v. U.S. Min. Prods., 92 N.Y.2d 421, 429 (1998)). [11]   Id. [12]   N.Y. State Assembly Mem. In Supp. of Legis., click here. [13]   See Bethpage Water Dist., 884 F.3d at 119. [14]   Id. (emphasis added). [15]   Id. at 128. [16]   See N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214-h. [17]   https://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/1-4-dioxane-cuomo-gaughran-1.38223403; https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-legislation-giving-public-water-suppliers-three-year-statute-limitations. [18]   https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-legislation-giving-public-water-suppliers-three-year-statute-limitations; see https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=A05477&term=2019&Summary=Y&Text=Y. [19]   https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-legislation-giving-public-water-suppliers-three-year-statute-limitations. [20]   Id. [21]   See, e.g., Panzo v. Keyspan Corp., 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 07407 (2d Dep’t Oct. 16, 2019). Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s lawyers are available to assist with any questions you may have regarding these issues. For further information, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s Public Policy or Environmental Litigation and Mass Tort practice groups, or the authors: Mylan L. Denerstein – Co-Chair, Public Policy Practice, New York (+1 212-351-3850, mdenerstein@gibsondunn.com) Abbey Hudson – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7954, ahudson@gibsondunn.com) Seth Rokosky– New York (+1 212-351-6389, srokosky@gibsondunn.com) Please also feel free to contact the following practice group leaders: Environmental Litigation and Mass Tort Group: Daniel W. Nelson – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3687, dnelson@gibsondunn.com) Peter E. Seley – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3689, pseley@gibsondunn.com) © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

November 12, 2019 |
Law360 Names Nine Gibson Dunn Partners as 2019 MVPs

Law360 named nine Gibson Dunn partners among its 2019 MVPs and noted that Gibson Dunn was one of two law firms with the most MVPs this year.  Law360 MVPs feature lawyers who have “distinguished themselves from their peers by securing hard-earned successes in high-stakes litigation, complex global matters and record-breaking deals.” The list was published on November 12, 2019. Gibson Dunn’s MVPs are: Richard J. Birns, a Private Equity MVP [PDF] – Rich is a partner in the New York office and Co-Chair of the Sports Law Practice Group. He focuses his practice on U.S. and cross-border mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures and financings for both corporations and leading private equity firms.  He also advises private investment funds on a variety of corporate issues, including securities law and shareholder activism matters.  He has extensive experience advising clients on significant transactional matters in media, sports and entertainment. Michael P. Darden, an Energy MVP [PDF] – Mike is Partner-in-Charge of the Houston office and Chair of the Oil & Gas practice group. His practice focuses on International and U.S. oil and gas ventures (including LNG, deep-water and unconventional resource development projects), international and U.S. infrastructure projects, asset acquisitions and divestitures, and energy-based financings (including project financings, reserve-based loans and production payments). Scott A. Edelman, a Trials MVP [PDF] – Scott is a partner in the Century City office and Co-Chair of the Media, Entertainment and Technology Practice Group. He has first-chaired numerous jury trials, bench trials and arbitrations, including class actions, taking well over 25 to final verdict or decision. He has a broad background in commercial litigation, including antitrust, class actions, employment, entertainment and intellectual property, real estate and product liability. Theane Evangelis, a Class Action MVP [PDF] – Theane is a partner in the Los Angeles office, Co-Chair of the firm’s Class Actions Practice Group and Vice Chair of the California Appellate Practice Group. She has played a lead role in a wide range of appellate, constitutional, media and entertainment, and crisis management matters, as well as a variety of employment, consumer and other class actions. Mark A. Kirsch, a Securities MVP [PDF] – Mark is Co-Partner-in-Charge of the New York office. His practice focuses on complex securities, white collar, commercial and antitrust litigation. He is routinely named one of the leading litigators in the United States. Joshua S. Lipshutz, a Cybersecurity MVP [PDF] – Josh is a partner in the Washington, D.C. and San Francisco offices. His practice focuses primarily on constitutional, class action, data privacy, and securities-related matters.  He represents clients before the Supreme Court of the United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court, the Delaware Supreme Court, the D.C. Court of Appeals, and many other state and federal courts. Jane M. Love, a Life Sciences MVP [PDF] – Jane is a partner in the New York office. Her practice spans four areas: patent litigation, Patent Office trial proceedings including inter partes reviews (IPRs), strategic patent prosecution advice and patent diligence in transactions. She is experienced in a wide array of life sciences areas such as pharmaceuticals, biologics, biosimilars, antibodies, immunotherapies, genetics, vaccines, protein therapies, blood factors, medical devices, diagnostics, gene therapies, RNA therapies, bioinformatics and nanotechnology. Matthew D. McGill, a Sports & Betting MVP – Matthew is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office. He has participated in 21 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, prevailing in 16.  Spanning a wide range of substantive areas, those representations have included several high-profile triumphs over foreign and domestic sovereigns. Outside the Supreme Court, his practice focuses on cases involving novel and complex questions of federal law, often in high-profile litigation against governmental entities. Jason C. Schwartz, an Employment MVP [PDF] – Jason is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office and Co-Chair of the Labor & Employment Practice Group. His practice includes sensitive workplace investigations, high-profile trade secret and non-compete matters, wage-hour and discrimination class actions, Sarbanes-Oxley and other whistleblower protection claims, executive and other significant employment disputes, labor union controversies, and workplace safety litigation.

November 1, 2019 |
Matthew McGill Named a Sports & Entertainment Trailblazer

The National Law Journal named Washington, D.C. partner Matthew McGill among its 2019 Sports & Entertainment Trailblazers. McGill was recognized for his work convincing the Supreme Court to strike down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992. The report was published in November 2019. Matthew McGill is an appellate litigator who has participated in 21 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, prevailing in 16. Outside the Supreme Court, his practice focuses on cases involving novel and complex questions of federal law, often in high-profile litigation against governmental entities.

October 17, 2019 |
Webcast: Litigating Article 78 Challenges to Government Action in New York

With New York City and State agencies and government officials—from the Attorney General to the New York State Department of Financial Services to the New York City Department of Buildings—taking a more and more aggressive role in policing virtually every industry operating in New York, it has become critical for regulated industries to understand their legal options in challenging New York State and City agency regulations, executive determinations, and government policies. The primary vehicle for doing so is the Article 78 proceeding, brought in New York State Supreme Court. In this one-hour presentation, two of our most experienced partners in the field of challenging government action in New York—Mylan Denerstein and Akiva Shapiro—provide practical and strategic guidance for the successful prosecution of these sometimes misunderstood summary proceedings. Using real-world examples from their practice, they will discuss the primary strategic issues that you should consider in deciding whether to bring an Article 78 action (versus, for example, a suit in federal court); provide a roadmap for Article 78 actions and keys to success; and discuss the procedural hurdles actors often throw up in defending against these actions, and ways of neutralizing them. The program is beneficial to anyone regulated or affected by actions taken by New York City and State agencies and officials. View Slides (PDF) PANELISTS: Mylan Denerstein is a litigation partner in the New York office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Ms. Denerstein is Co-Chair of Gibson Dunn’s Public Policy Practice Group and a member of the Crisis Management, White Collar Defense and Investigations, Labor and Employment, Securities Litigation, and Appellate Practice Groups. Ms. Denerstein leads complex litigation and internal investigations, representing companies in their most critical times, typically involving state, municipal, and federal government agencies. Prior to joining Gibson Dunn, Ms. Denerstein served as Counsel to New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo; in a diverse array of legal positions in New York State and City agencies; and as a federal prosecutor and Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Ms. Denerstein was named to the 2019 list of “Notable Women in Law” by Crain’s New York Business and the 2019 “Law Power 50” list by City & State. Akiva Shapiro is a litigation partner in the New York office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where he is a member of the Firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law, Media & Entertainment, Securities Litigation, and Betting & Gaming Practice Groups. Mr. Shapiro’s practice focuses on a broad range of high-stakes constitutional, commercial, and appellate litigation matters, including Article 78, First Amendment, Due Process, and statutory challenges to government actions and regulations. He is regularly engaged in front of New York’s trial courts, federal and state courts of appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court, and has been named a Super Lawyers New York Metro “Rising Star” in Constitutional Law. MCLE CREDIT INFORMATION: This program has been approved for credit in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board for a maximum of 1.0 credit hour, of which 1.0 credit hour may be applied toward the areas of professional practice requirement. This course is approved for transitional/non-transitional credit. Attorneys seeking New York credit must obtain an Affirmation Form prior to watching the archived version of this webcast. Please contact Jeanine McKeown (National Training Administrator), at 213-229-7140 or jmckeown@gibsondunn.com to request the MCLE form. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1.0 hour. California attorneys may claim “self-study” credit for viewing the archived version of this webcast.  No certificate of attendance is required for California “self-study” credit.

October 4, 2019 |
Gibson Dunn Ranked in the 2020 UK Legal 500

The UK Legal 500 2020 ranked Gibson Dunn in 15 practice areas and named seven partners as Leading Lawyers.  The firm was recognized in the following categories: Corporate and Commercial: Corporate Tax Corporate and Commercial: Equity Capital Markets – Mid-Large Cap Corporate and Commercial: EU and Competition Corporate and Commercial: M&A: upper mid-market and premium deals, £500m+ Corporate and Commercial: Private equity: transactions – high-value deals (£250m+) Dispute Resolution: Commercial Litigation Dispute Resolution: International Arbitration Dispute Resolution: Public International Law Human Resources: Employment – Employers Projects, Energy and Natural Resources: Oil and Gas Public Sector: Administrative and Public Law Real Estate: Commercial Property – Hotels and Leisure Real Estate: Commercial Property – Investment Real Estate: Property Finance Risk Advisory: Regulatory Investigations and Corporate Crime The partners named as Leading Lawyers are Sandy Bhogal – Corporate and Commercial: Corporate Tax; Steve Thierbach – Corporate and Commercial: Equity Capital Markets; Ali Nikpay – Corporate and Commercial: EU and Competition; Philip Rocher – Dispute Resolution: Commercial Litigation; Cyrus Benson – Dispute Resolution: International Arbitration; Jeffrey Sullivan – Dispute Resolution: International Arbitration; and Alan Samson – Real Estate: Commercial Property – Investment and Real Estate: Property Finance. Claibourne Harrison has also been named as a Rising Star for Real Estate: Commercial Property – Investment. The guide was published on September 26, 2019. Gibson Dunn’s London office offers full-service English and U.S. law capability, including corporate, finance, dispute resolution, competition/antitrust, real estate, labor and employment, and tax.  Our lawyers advise international corporations, financial institutions, private equity funds and governments on complex and challenging transactions and disputes. Our London corporate practice is at the forefront of cross-border M&A, financing and joint venture transactions, including advising clients seeking to access U.S. and European capital markets.  Team members handle major domestic and multi-jurisdictional commercial cases before English, EU and Commonwealth courts, and have a wealth of experience in taking complex matters to trial.  Gibson Dunn’s London office was founded more than 30 years ago.  Our dynamic team includes many dual-qualified lawyers with extensive language skills.

October 1, 2019 |
Benchmark Litigation US 2020 Gives Top Marks to Gibson Dunn

Benchmark Litigation US recognized Gibson Dunn in eight national litigation practice areas in its 2020 edition and named 67 partners as Litigation Stars and Future Stars across the U.S.  Nationally, the firm received Tier 1 rankings in the Antitrust, Appellate, General Commercial, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Securities and White Collar Crime categories.  The firm also earned the publication’s highest recommendations for its litigation practices in California, New York, Texas and Washington, D.C. The publication also named the firm as one of the “Top 20 Trial Firms” in the nation and named four partners to its annual “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” list: Century City partner Wayne Barsky, New York partners Randy Mastro and Orin Snyder, and Washington DC partner Richard Parker.  The rankings were released September 25, 2019.

October 1, 2019 |
Anne Champion and Randy Mastro Named Litigators of the Week

The Am Law Litigation Daily named New York partners Anne Champion and Randy Mastro as its Litigators of the Week [PDF] for successfully persuading a district judge that a foreign arbitration award against Chevron was a sham.  The profile was published on September 27, 2019. Anne Champion is a member of Gibson Dunn’s Transnational Litigation, Environmental Litigation, and Intellectual Property Practice Groups.  She has played a lead role in a wide range of high-stakes litigation matters, including trials. Randy Mastro, Co-Chair of the Firm’s Litigation Practice Group, routinely ranks among the nation’s leading litigators and trial lawyers in surveys of corporate counsel and other practitioners.  He has tried dozens of cases in private practice and as a federal prosecutor, and he has also argued more than 100 appeals in federal and state appellate courts throughout the country.

September 24, 2019 |
UK Supreme Court Decides Suspending UK Parliament Was Unlawful

Click for PDF The UK’s highest court has today ruled (here) that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend (or “prorogue”) Parliament for five weeks, from September 9, 2019 until October 14, 2019, was unlawful. The Supreme Court, sitting with eleven justices instead of the usual five, unanimously found “that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification”. It is a well-established constitutional convention that the Queen is obliged to follow the Prime Minister’s advice. The landmark Supreme Court ruling dealt with two appeals, one from businesswoman Gina Miller and the other from the UK Government. Mrs Miller was appealing a decision of the English Divisional Court that the prorogation was “purely political” and not a matter for the courts. The UK Government was appealing a ruling of Scotland’s Court of Session that the suspension was “unlawful” and had been used to “stymie” Parliament. A link to the full judgment is here. A key question before the Court, therefore, was whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was “justiciable”, i.e. whether the court had a right to review that decision or whether it was purely a political matter. The Court held that the advice was justiciable: “The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries”. The next question was on the constitutional limits of the power to prorogue. The Court decided that prorogation would be unlawful if it had the effect of “frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive”. The Court stated that it was not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive; the key concern was whether there was good reason for the Prime Minister to prorogue as he did. The subsequent question related to the effect of the prorogation. The Supreme Court held that the decision to prorogue Parliament prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role of holding the government to account and that, in the “quite exceptional” surrounding circumstances, it is “especially important that he [the Prime Minister] be ready to face the House of Commons.” The Court held that it was “impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason – let alone a good reason – to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks”. The final question was on the legal effect of that finding and what remedies the Court should grant. The Court declared that as the advice was unlawful, the prorogation was unlawful, null and of no effect; Parliament had not been prorogued. The Supreme Court’s judgment further explained that “as Parliament is not prorogued, it is for Parliament to decide what to do next.” Almost immediately after judgment was handed down, it was announced that both the House of Commons and House of Lords will resume sitting tomorrow, Wednesday September 25, 2019. Prime Minister’s Questions – usually scheduled for each Wednesday that Parliament is in session – will not take place due to notice requirements. The UK Government has pledged to “respect” the judgment and the Prime Minister plans to return to the UK from New York, where he is due to address the U.N. General Assembly. Shortly before Parliament was prorogued, a new law was passed requiring the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the current October 31 deadline for the UK to leave the EU unless Parliament agreed otherwise (European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019). The Government has asserted that this legislation is defective and continues to insist that the UK will leave the EU on October 31, 2019. The Supreme Court’s judgment does not directly affect the position in respect of the October 31 deadline. This client alert was prepared by Patrick Doris, Anne MacPherson, Charlie Geffen, Ali Nikpay and Ryan Whelan in London. We have a working group in London (led by Patrick Doris, Charlie Geffen, Ali Nikpay and Selina Sagayam) addressing Brexit related issues.  Please feel free to contact any member of the working group or any of the other lawyers mentioned below. Ali Nikpay – Antitrust ANikpay@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4273 Charlie Geffen – Corporate CGeffen@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4225 Sandy Bhogal – Tax SBhogal@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4266 Philip Rocher – Litigation PRocher@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4202 Jeffrey M. Trinklein – Tax JTrinklein@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4224 Patrick Doris – Litigation; Data Protection PDoris@gibsondunn.com Tel:  020 7071 4276 Alan Samson – Real Estate ASamson@gibsondunn.com Tel:  020 7071 4222 Penny Madden QC – Arbitration PMadden@gibsondunn.com Tel:  020 7071 4226 Selina Sagayam – Corporate SSagayam@gibsondunn.com Tel:  020 7071 4263 Thomas M. Budd – Finance TBudd@gibsondunn.com Tel:  020 7071 4234 James A. Cox – Employment; Data Protection JCox@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4250 Gregory A. Campbell – Restructuring GCampbell@gibsondunn.com Tel:  020 7071 4236 © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

September 13, 2019 |
Stacie Fletcher and Katherine Smith Named Among Americas Rising Stars

Euromoney Legal Media Group named two partners to its 2019 Americas Rising Stars list. Washington D.C. partner Stacie Fletcher was named “Best in Environment,” and Los Angeles partner Katherine Smith was awarded “Best in Labor & Employment.” The awards were announced on September 12, 2019. Stacie Fletcher represents clients in a wide variety of federal and state litigation, including agency enforcement actions, cost recovery cases, and mass tort actions. Katherine Smith has extensive experience representing employers in individual, representative and class action litigation at both the trial court and appellate level. Her practice focuses on high stakes litigation matters such as wage and hour class actions, whistleblower retaliation cases, and executive disputes.

September 10, 2019 |
Litigation Partner Joshua Lerner Joins Gibson Dunn in San Francisco

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce that Joshua Lerner has joined the firm as a partner in its San Francisco office.  Lerner, formerly a partner at Durie Tangri, will continue to focus on litigating major complex commercial matters. “Josh will be a terrific addition to the firm,” said Ken Doran, Chairman and Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn.  “He has a well-deserved reputation as an accomplished trial lawyer.  Having spent time in-house and in private practice, Josh brings a pragmatic perspective to the business and legal issues confronting our clients, particularly in the tech sector.  Gibson Dunn has one of the premier litigation platforms in the world, and Josh will add to that strength.” “Josh brings excellent experience representing large multinational technology clients in high-stakes matters,” said Charles J. Stevens, Partner-in-Charge of the San Francisco office.  “He will complement our thriving litigation practice in the Bay Area and firmwide.” “I’m thrilled to join the Gibson Dunn team,” Lerner said.  “Gibson Dunn’s reputation as a litigation powerhouse is well-known, and I’m looking forward to expanding my practice.  I’m also confident that the firm’s collaborative culture will be a natural fit.” About Joshua Lerner Lerner advises leading technology companies on complex commercial litigation.  His practice covers a wide variety of areas, including class actions, intellectual property, trade secrets, breach of contract and founder disputes. Before joining Gibson Dunn, Lerner was a partner at Durie Tangri for 10 years.  From 2006 to 2009, he was in-house at Genentech, serving as a Senior Litigation Counsel.  Prior, he also practiced at Clarence Dyer LLP & Cohen and Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.  Over the course of his career, Lerner has taught business torts at University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Lerner received his law degree in 2001 from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

September 9, 2019 |
Law360 Names Seven Gibson Dunn Lawyers as 2019 Rising Stars

Seven Gibson Dunn lawyers were named among Law360’s Rising Stars for 2019 [PDF], featuring “attorneys under 40 whose legal accomplishments transcend their age.”  The following lawyers were recognized: Washington D.C. partner Chantale Fiebig in Transportation, San Francisco partner Allison Kidd in Real Estate, Washington D.C. associate Andrew Kilberg in Telecommunications, New York associate Sean McFarlane in Sports, New York partner Laura O’Boyle in Securities, Los Angeles partner Katherine Smith in Employment and Century City partner Daniela Stolman in Private Equity. Gibson Dunn was one of three firms with the second most Rising Stars. The list of Rising Stars was published on September 8, 2019.

August 26, 2019 |
Scott Edelman and Michele Maryott Named Among National Law Journal’s 2019 Winning Litigators

The National Law Journal named Century City partner Scott Edelman and Orange County partner Michele Maryott among the 32 lawyers on in its 2019 list of “Winning Litigators,” featuring “star trial litigators” who “took on high-stakes matters and won.” The report was published on August 26, 2019. Scott Edelman has first-chaired numerous jury trials, bench trials and arbitrations, including class actions, taking well over twenty to final verdict or decision. He has a broad background in commercial litigation, including antitrust, class actions, employment, entertainment and intellectual property, real estate and product liability. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Michele Maryott’s practice focuses on business litigation, with particular emphasis on employment litigation, class actions and complex commercial disputes. She has litigated a wide range of labor and employment matters. She also represents clients in a wide variety of commercial litigation, including consumer class actions and other disputes involving environmental and toxic torts, acquisition-related disputes, unfair business practices and business torts. As trial counsel, she has obtained numerous defense verdicts as well as multi-million dollar awards on behalf of clients in a variety of industries.

August 15, 2019 |
2019 Mid-Year Securities Litigation Update

Click for PDF The rate of new securities class action filings appears to be stabilizing, but that does not mean 2019 has been lacking in important developments in securities law. This mid-year update highlights what you most need to know in securities litigation trends and developments for the first half of 2019: The Supreme Court decided Lorenzo, holding that, even though Lorenzo did not “make” statements at issue and is thus not subject to enforcement under subsection (b) of Rule 10b-5, the ordinary and dictionary definitions of the words in Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) are sufficiently broad to encompass his conduct, namely disseminating false or misleading information to prospective investors with the intent to defraud. Because the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in Emulex as improvidently granted, there remains a circuit split as to whether Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act supports an implied private right of action based on negligent misrepresentations or omissions made in connection with a tender offer. We explain important developments in Delaware courts, including the Court of Chancery’s application of C & J Energy, as well as the Delaware Supreme Court’s (1) application and extension of its recent precedents in appraisal litigation to damages claims, (2) elaboration of its recent holding on MFW’s “up front” requirement, and (3) rare conclusion that a Caremark claim—“possibly the most difficult theory in corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a judgment”—survived a motion to dismiss. Finally, we continue to monitor significant cases interpreting and applying the Supreme Court’s decisions in Omnicare and Halliburton II. I.   Filing And Settlement Trends New federal securities class action filings in the first six months of 2019 indicate that annual filings are on track to be similar to the number of new cases filed in each of the prior two years. According to a newly released NERA Economic Consulting study (“NERA”), 218 cases were filed in the first half of this year. While there was a relative surge in new cases in the first quarter of the year, this higher level of new cases did not persist in the second quarter. Filing activity in the first half of 2019 indicates a continuation of the shift in the types of cases observed in 2018—an increase in the number of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, or Section 12 cases, and a decrease in the number of merger objection cases. If the filing composition and levels observed in the first half of 2019 are indicative of the pattern for the rest of the year, we will see a 15% increase in Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and Section 12 cases compared to the approximate 1% growth in this category of filings in 2018. On the other hand, merger objection cases filed in 2019 are on pace to be more than 16% lower than similar cases filed in the prior year. While the median settlement values for the first half of 2019 are roughly equivalent to those in 2018 (at $12.0 million, down from $12.70 million in 2018), average settlement values are down over 50% from 2018 (at $33 million, down from $71 million in 2018).  That said, this discrepancy is due predominantly to one settlement in 2018 exceeding $1 billion.  Excluding such outliers, we actually see a slight increase in average settlement values compared to the prior two years. The industry sectors most frequently sued thus far in 2019 continue to be healthcare (22% of all cases filed), tech (20%), and finance (15%). Cases filed against healthcare companies in the first half of 2019 are showing the continuation of a downward trend from a spike in 2016, while cases filed against tech and finance companies are on pace with 2018. A.   Filing Trends Figure 1 below reflects filing rates for the first half of 2019 (all charts courtesy of NERA). So far this year, 218 cases have been filed in federal court, annualizing to 436 cases, which is on pace with the number of filings in 2017 and 2018, and significantly higher than the numbers seen in years prior to 2017. Note that this figure does not include the many class suits filed in state courts or the rising number of state court derivative suits, including many such suits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. B.   Mix Of Cases Filed In First Half Of 2019 1.   Filings By Industry Sector As seen in Figure 2 below, the split of non-merger objection class actions filed in the first half of 2019 across industry sectors is fairly consistent with the distribution observed in 2018, with few indications of significant shifts or increases in particular sectors. As in 2018, the Health Technology and Services and the Electronic Technology and Technology Services sectors accounted for over 40% of filings. The two sectors reflecting the largest changes from 2018 thus far are Consumer Durables and Non-Durables (at 9%, up from 6% in 2018) and Consumer and Distribution Services (at 5%, down from 9% in 2018). See Figure 2, infra. 2.   Merger Cases As shown in Figure 3, 83 “merger objection” cases have been filed in federal court in the first half of 2019 —below the pace of 109 cases at this point in 2018. If the 2019 trend continues, the 166 merger objection cases projected to be filed in 2019 will be about 16% fewer than the 198 merger objection cases filed in the prior year. C.   Settlement Trends As Figure 4 shows below, during the first half of 2019, the average settlement declined to $33 million, more than 50% lower than the average in 2018 but higher than the average in 2017. This phenomenon is primarily driven by one settlement in 2018 exceeding $1 billion, heavily skewing the average for that year.  If we limit our analysis to cases with settlements under $1 billion, there is actually a slight increase in the average settlement value in 2019 compared to the prior years. Finally, as Figure 5 shows, the median settlement value for cases was $12 million, which is in line with the median in 2018 and almost double the median value in 2017. II.   What To Watch For In The Supreme Court A.   Lorenzo Affirms That Disseminators Of False Statements May Be Held Liable Under Rules 10b-5(a) And 10b-5(c) Even If Janus Shields Them From Liability Under Rule 10b-5(b) We discussed the Supreme Court’s decision to grant review of Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 17-1077, in our 2018 Mid-Year Securities Litigation Update, and our 2018 Year-End Securities Litigation Update. Readers will recall that the question presented in Lorenzo was whether a securities fraud claim premised on a false statement that was not “made” by the defendant can be actionable as a “fraudulent scheme” under Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c), even though it would not support a claim under Rule 10b-5(b) pursuant to the Court’s ruling in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011). On March 27, 2019, the Supreme Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit in a 6–2 opinion by Justice Breyer (Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the decision because he participated in the panel decision while a judge on the court of appeals).  The Court held that the ordinary and dictionary definitions of the words in Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c) are sufficiently broad to encompass Lorenzo’s conduct, namely disseminating false or misleading information to prospective investors with the intent to defraud, even if the disseminator did not “make” the statements and is thus not subject to enforcement under subsection (b) of the Rule.  Lorenzo v. SEC, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), slip op. at 5–7. Underlying the Court’s opinion is the principle that the securities laws and regulations work together as a whole. The Court rejected Lorenzo’s argument that Rule 10b-5 should be read to mean that each provision of the Rule governs different, mutually exclusive spheres of conduct. Under Lorenzo’s reading, he could be liable for false statements only if his conduct violated provisions that specifically refer to such statements, such as Rule 10b-5(b), and could therefore not be liable under other provisions of the Rule, which do not specifically mention misstatements. The Court noted, however, that it has “long recognized considerable overlap among the subsections of the Rule” and related statutory provisions.  Id. at 7–8.  The opinion further noted that Lorenzo’s conduct “would seem a paradigmatic example of securities fraud,” making it difficult for the majority to reconcile Lorenzo’s argument with the basic purpose and congressional intent behind the securities laws.  Id. at 9. The majority also adopted the SEC’s argument that Janus concerned only Rule 10b-5(b), and thus does not operate to shield those who disseminate false or misleading information from scheme liability, even if they do not “make” the statement.  In response to Lorenzo’s contention that imposing primary liability here would weaken the distinction between primary and secondary liability, the Court drew what it characterized as a clear line:  “Those who disseminate false statements with intent to defraud may be held primarily liable under Rules 10b-5(a) and (c),” as well as Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, “even if they are secondarily liable under Rule 10b-5(b).”  Id. at 10–11.  Finally, the Court identified a flaw in Lorenzo’s suggestion that he should only be held secondarily liable.  Under that theory, someone who disseminated false statements (even if knowingly engaged in fraud) could not be held to have aided and abetted a “maker” of a false statement if the maker did not violate Rule 10b-5(b). That is because the aiding and abetting statute requires that there be a violator to whom the secondary violator provides “substantial assistance.” Id. at 12. And if, under Lorenzo’s theory, the disseminator did not primarily violate other subsections (perhaps because the disseminator lacked the necessary intent), the fraud might go unpunished altogether.  Id. at 12–13. We noted in our 2018 Year-End Securities Litigation Update that Justice Gorsuch appeared accepting of Lorenzo’s positions during the oral argument, and he did join Justice Thomas (the author of Janus) in dissent. The dissent contended that the majority “eviscerate[d]” the distinction drawn in Janus between primary and secondary liability by holding that a person who did not “make” a fraudulent misstatement “can nevertheless be primarily liable for it.” Id. at 1 (Thomas, J., dissenting).  The dissent faulted the Court for holding, in essence, that the more general provisions of other securities laws each “completely subsumes” the provisions that specifically govern false statements, such as Rule 10b-5(b). Id. at 3.  Instead, the dissenters argued that these specific provisions must be operative in false-statement cases, and that the more general provisions should be applied only to cases that do not fall within the purview of these more specific provisions. B.   Pending Certiorari Petitions Regular readers of these updates will recall that we wrote about the Supreme Court’s pending decision in Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, No. 18-459, in the 2018 Year-End Securities Litigation Update. In April, the Supreme Court heard oral argument and then dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), slip op. at 1. As is common in such dismissals, the Justices offered no explanation of why they dismissed the case. Therefore, there remains a circuit split as to whether Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act supports an implied private right of action based on negligent misrepresentations or omissions made in connection with a tender offer. There is also at least one notable securities case in which a petition for certiorari is pending. Putnam Investments, LLC v. Brotherston, No. 18-926, an ERISA case, presents the question whether the plaintiff or defendant must prove that an alleged fiduciary breach related to investment option selection caused a loss to participants or the plan. The case also raises the issue of whether the First Circuit correctly held that showing that particular investment options did not perform as well as a set of index funds, selected by the plaintiffs with the benefit of hindsight, suffices as a matter of law to establish “losses to the plan.” The Supreme Court has entered an order requesting the Solicitor General file a brief expressing the views of the United States. The government has not yet filed its brief in this case. We will continue to monitor the petition and provide an update if the Supreme Court grants certiorari. III.   Delaware Developments A.   Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Deal Price Is Best Evidence Of Fair Value In Appraisal, And Of Damages In Entire Fairness Regular readers of these updates will recall that, since our 2017 Year-End Securities Litigation Update, we have been reporting on the significant shift in Delaware appraisal law resulting from the Delaware Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dell, Inc. v. Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd., 177 A.3d 1 (Del. 2017), where it directed the Court of Chancery to use market factors to determine the fair value of a company’s stock. In our 2018 Mid-Year Securities Litigation Update, we wrote about the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in Verition Partners Master Fund v. Aruba Networks, Inc., where the trial court interpreted Dell as endorsing a company’s unaffected market price and deal price as reliable indicators of fair value under certain circumstances. 2018 WL 2315943, at *1 (Del. Ch. May 21, 2018). In April, however, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the trial court, clarifying that, although the “unaffected market price” of a seller’s stock “in an efficient market is an important indicator of its economic value that should be given weight” under appropriate circumstances, Dell “did not imply that the market price of a stock was necessarily the best estimate of the stock’s so-called fundamental value at any particular time.” Verition Partners Master Fund v. Aruba Networks, Inc., 210 A.3d 128, 2019 WL 1614026, at *6 (Del. Apr. 16, 2019). Eschewing remand, the Supreme Court instead ordered the trial court to enter judgment awarding deal price less synergies as the company’s “fair value.” Id. at *8–9. Then, in May, the Delaware Supreme Court extended the same market-based deference from the appraisal context to damages claims in its affirmance of In re PLX Technology Inc. Stockholders Litigation, 2018 WL 5018535 (Del. Ch. Oct. 16, 2018), aff’d, 2019 WL 2144476, at *1 (Del. May 16, 2019) (TABLE). Late last year, the Delaware Court of Chancery determined in a post-trial opinion that an activist hedge fund aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duties by directors in connection with their sale of the target company. 2018 WL 5018535, at *1. This was a pyrrhic victory, however, as the Court of Chancery concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove their allegation that, had the company remained a stand-alone entity, its value would have exceeded the deal price by more than 50%. Id. at *2. Instead, the Court of Chancery found that “[a] far more persuasive source of valuation evidence is the deal price that resulted from the Company’s sale process.” Id. at *54; see also id. & n.605 (citing Dell, 177 A.3d at 30). In affirming the Court of Chancery’s decision on appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that “the Court of Chancery erred . . . by importing principles from . . . appraisal jurisprudence to give deference to the deal price.” In re PLX Tech. Inc. Stockholders Litig., 2019 WL 2144476, at *1 (Del. May 16, 2019) (TABLE). B.   Joint Valuation Exercise Constitutes Substantive Economic Negotiations Under Flood, Fails MFW’s “Up Front” Requirement In our 2018 Year-End Securities Litigation Update, we reported on the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Flood v. Synutra International, Inc., where it held that the element of Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp. (“MFW”), 88 A.3d 635, 644 (Del. 2014) that requires a transaction to be conditioned “ab initio” or “up front” on the approval of both a special committee and a majority of the minority stockholders, in turn “require[s] the controller to self-disable before the start of substantive economic negotiations, and to have both the controller and Special Committee bargain under the pressures exerted on both of them by these protections.” Flood v. Synutra Int’l, Inc., 195 A.3d 754, 763 (Del. 2018). In Olenik v. Lodzinski, 208 A.3d 704 (Del. 2019), the Delaware Supreme Court added color to its holding in Flood that “up front” means “before the start of substantive economic negotiations,” Flood, 195 A.3d at 763. In the decision underlying Olenik, the Court of Chancery found that, although the parties to the merger had “worked on the transaction for months” before implementing MFW’s “up front” conditions, those “preliminary discussions” were “entirely exploratory in nature” and “never rose to the level of bargaining.” Olenik, 208 A.3d at 706, 716–17. Disagreeing with and reversing the Court of Chancery, the Delaware Supreme Court held that “preliminary discussions transitioned to substantive economic negotiations when the parties engaged in a joint exercise to value” the merging entities. Id. at 717. In particular, the Delaware Supreme Court found it reasonable to infer that two presentations valuing the target “set the field of play for the economic negotiations to come by fixing the range in which offers and counteroffers might be made.” Id. Thus, the parties could not invoke MFW’s protections because they did not condition the transaction on approval of both a special committee and a majority of the minority stockholders until after these “substantive economic negotiations.” Id. C.   Under C & J Energy, Curative Shopping Process “Cannot Be Granted” To Remedy Deal Subject To Entire Fairness Recently, the Court of Chancery declined to “blue-pencil” a merger agreement resulting from a flawed process based on the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in C & J Energy Services v. City of Miami General Employees’ & Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust, 107 A.3d 1049 (Del. 2014). See FrontFour Capital Grp. LLC v. Traube, 2019 WL 1313408, at *33 (Del. Ch. Mar. 22, 2019). Recall that, in C & J Energy, the Delaware Supreme Court cautioned the Court of Chancery against depriving “adequately informed” stockholders of the “chance to vote on whether to accept the benefits and risks that come with [a flawed] transaction, or to reject the deal,” 107 A.3d at 1070, where (1) “no rival bidder has emerged to complain that it was not given a fair opportunity to bid,” id. at 1073, and (2) a preliminary injunction would “strip an innocent third party [buyer] of its contractual rights while simultaneously binding that party to consummate the transaction,” id. at 1054. In FrontFour, the plaintiff proved that the deal at issue was not entirely fair because conflicted insiders tainted the sale process; the special committee failed to inform itself adequately; standstill agreements prevented third parties from coming forward; and other deal protections prevented an effective post-signing market check, among other things. 2019 WL 1313408, at *32. Nevertheless, the Court of Chancery declined to grant “the most equitable relief” available—“a curative shopping process, devoid of [management] influence, free of any deal protections, plus full disclosures.” Id. at *33. The Court of Chancery reasoned that it had “no discretion” to do so under C & J Energy because the injunction sought would “strip an innocent third party of its contractual rights” under the merger agreement. Id. D.   Delaware Supreme Court Holds Caremark Claim Adequately Pleaded As we reported in our 2017 Year-End Securities Litigation Update, a Caremark claim generally seeks to hold directors personally accountable for damages to a company arising from their failure to properly monitor or oversee the company’s major business activities and compliance programs. On June 19, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of a derivative suit against key executives and the board of directors of Blue Bell USA, carrying implications for both determinations of director independence and fiduciary duties under Caremark. See Marchand v. Barnhill, 2019 WL 2509617 (Del. June 19, 2019). In its demand futility analysis, the Court held that a combination of a “longstanding business affiliation” and “deep . . . personal ties” cast reasonable doubt on a director’s ability to act impartially. Id. at *2. Notably, the reversal turned on the length and depth of one director’s relationship with the CEO of Blue Bell and his family. Although being “social acquaintances who occasionally have dinner or go to common events” does not per se preclude one’s independence, the current CEO’s father and predecessor had hired, mentored, and quickly promoted the director in question to senior management. Id. at *11. The director maintained a close relationship with the CEO’s family that spanned more than three decades and the family even spearheaded a campaign to name a college building after the director. Id. at *10. This combination of facts persuaded the Court that this director was not independent for demand futility purposes. Id. at *10–11. The Court also held that a board’s failure to implement oversight systems related to a “compliance issue intrinsically critical to the business operation” gives rise to a duty of loyalty claim under Caremark. Id. at *13. The Court concluded that because food safety compliance was critical to the operation of a “single-product food company,” id at *4, neither the Company’s nominal compliance with some applicable regulations, nor management’s discussion of general compliance matters with the board were sufficient to satisfy the board’s oversight responsibilities, id. at *13–14. IV.   Loss Causation Developments The first half of 2019 saw several notable developments regarding loss causation, including continued developments relating to Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398 (2014), discussed below in Section VI. Separately, on June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court rejected a petition for a writ of certiorari filed in First Solar, Inc. v. Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme, which we discussed in the 2018 Mid-Year Securities Litigation Update. First Solar involved a perceived ambiguity in prior precedent regarding the correct test for loss causation under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). Readers will recall that the Ninth Circuit held in First Solar that loss causation can be established even when the corrective disclosure did not reveal the alleged fraud on which the securities fraud claim is based. Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme v. First Solar, Inc., 881 F.3d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, No. 18-164, 2019 WL 2570667 (U.S. June 24, 2019). First Solar filed its petition for writ of certiorari in August 2018, arguing that loss causation can be proven only if the market learns of, and reacts to, the underlying fraud. In May 2019, the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief recommending that certiorari be denied, arguing that the Ninth Circuit correctly rejected a “revelation-of-the-fraud” requirement for loss causation, pursuant to which a stock-price drop comes immediately after the revelation of a defendant’s fraud. Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in First Solar, some courts have found that a plaintiff adequately pleaded loss causation for the purposes of stating a claim under the Exchange Act when the revelation that caused the decline in a company’s stock price could be tracked back to the facts allegedly concealed, thus establishing proximate cause at the pleadings phase. See, e.g., In re Silver Wheaton Corp. Sec. Litig., 2019 WL 1512269, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2019) (denying motion to dismiss); Maverick Fund, L.D.C. v. First Solar, Inc., 2018 WL 6181241, at *8–10 (D. Ariz. Nov. 27, 2018) (denying motion to dismiss and finding that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded facts that, if proven, would establish that disclosures related to misstatements were “casually related” to fraudulent scheme). We will continue to monitor these and other developments regarding loss causation. V.   Falsity Of Opinions – Omnicare Update In the first half of 2019, courts continued to define the boundaries of Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 135 S. Ct. 1318 (2015), the case in which the Supreme Court addressed the scope of liability for false opinion statements under Section 11 of the Securities Act. In Omnicare, the Court held that “a sincere statement of pure opinion is not an ‘untrue statement of material fact,’ regardless whether an investor can ultimately prove the belief wrong.” Id. at 1327. Under that standard, opinion statements give rise to liability under only three circumstances: (1) when the speaker does not “actually hold[] the stated belief;” (2) when the statement contains false “embedded statements of fact;” and (3) when the omitted facts “conflict with what a reasonable investor would take from the statement itself.” Id. at 1326–27, 1329. Consistent with past years, Omnicare remains a high bar to pleading the falsity of opinion statements. See, e.g, Plaisance v. Schiller, 2019 WL 1205628, at *11 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2019) (dismissing complaint that was “[m]issing . . . allegations of fact capable of proving that [the company] did not subjectively believe its audit opinions when they were issued”); Teamsters Local 210 Affiliated Pension Tr. Fund v. Neustar, Inc., 2019 WL 693276, at *5 (E.D. Va. Feb. 19, 2019) (finding that plaintiffs did not “allege facts that create a strong inference that at the time they [made the alleged misstatement], the Defendants could not have reasonably held the opinion” proffered). For example, in Neustar, plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ opinion that a certain transition “would occur by September 30, 2018” was false or misleading. 2019 WL 693276, at *5. Even though defendants were in possession of a “Transition Report, which warned that the transition might not occur” by that date, the court found that “[t]hese statements were far from definitive pronouncements that the transition date would occur later than September 2018.” Id. In addition, courts have continued to flesh out the contours of when a plaintiff has alleged that a company is in possession of sufficient information cutting against its statements to render it liable for an omission. In In re Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. Securities Litigation, the court found that a CEO’s statement that the company “think[s]” it had remedied deficiencies leading to the FDA’s denial of its New Drug Application was inactionable, even where the FDA later rejected the resubmitted application. 2019 WL 1950399, at *8 (D. Mass. Apr. 30, 2019). Not only did the CEO’s language “signal[] to investors that his statement was an opinion and not a guarantee,” but he also cautioned that it was up to the FDA to determine whether or not those deficiencies were corrected. Id. In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Rio Tinto plc, the SEC alleged that Rio Tinto violated securities laws by overstating the valuation of its newly acquired coal business when there had been certain adverse developments concerning the ability to transport coal and the quality of coal in the ground. 2019 WL 1244933, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019). The court dismissed the claim based on early valuation statements because those statements were opinions that “‘fairly align[ed] with’” information known at the time: namely, the main transportation option had not been entirely rejected, and the SEC did not “allege that Rio Tinto had come to fully appreciate the difficulties” concerning other transportation options and coal reserves by the time of those statements. Id. The SEC has moved to amend its complaint. Gibson Dunn represents Rio Tinto in this and other litigation. This year, courts also weighed in on the question of whether Omnicare applies to claims other than those brought under Section 11. Specifically, a Northern District of California court found that “[t]he Ninth Circuit has only extended Omnicare to Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims, not to Section 14 claims,” and therefore “decline[d] to extend Omnicare past the Ninth Circuit’s guidance.” Golub v. Gigamon Inc., 372 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (citing City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Align Tech., Inc., 856 F.3d 605, 616 (9th Cir. 2017)). Gibson Dunn represents several defendants in that matter. In contrast, the Fourth Circuit applied Omnicare to dismiss a Section 14 claim without any discussion about Omnicare’s limitations, determining that a forward-looking statement was still actionable as an omission. Paradise Wire & Cable Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Weil, 918 F.3d 312, 322–23 (4th Cir. 2019). Rather, the court emphasized the importance of context when evaluating opinion statements, noting that “words matter” and, as in Paradise Wire, can “render the claim for relief implausible.” Id. at 323. “When the words of a proxy statement, like the ones in this case, . . . contain tailored and specific warnings about the very omissions that are the subject of the allegations, those words render the claim for relief implausible.” Id. Additionally, a District of Delaware court recently declined to apply Omnicare to Section 10(b) claims: “Because the Third Circuit has twice declined to decide that Omnicare applies to Exchange Act claims, the Court is reluctant to decide that issue of first impression in connection with a motion to dismiss.” Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc. v. Navient Corp., 363 F. Supp. 3d 476, 496 (D. Del. 2019) (citing Jaroslawicz v. M & T Bank Corp., 912 F.3d 96 (3d Cir. 2018); In re Amarin Corp. PLC Sec. Litig., 689 F. App’x 124, 132 n.12 (3d Cir. 2017)). The Southern District of New York also considered whether Omnicare required broad disclosure of attorney-client privileged communications that might bear on whether omitted information rendered an opinion misleading. Pearlstein v. BlackBerry Ltd., 2019 WL 1259382, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019). In Pearlstein, plaintiffs argued that under Omnicare, a company’s “decision to include a legal opinion in [a] press release waived all attorney-client communications” related to the issuance of that release. Id. at *15. The court noted that Omnicare did not mandate a wholesale waiver, but “[a]t best . . . suggest[ed] that communications specific to a particular subject allegedly omitted or misrepresented within a securities filing may be subject to disclosure and, if the communications happen to be privileged, those communications may be subject to a finding of waiver.” Id. at *16. Accordingly, the company could not insulate itself with the privilege—documents containing relevant factual information were discoverable. However, privilege was not waived over the “side issue” of the company’s legal exposure, including as to documents on the strength and likelihood of any legal claims and “communications conducted solely for purposes of document preservation in connection with anticipated legal claims.” Id. VI.   Courts Continue To Define “Price Impact” Analysis At The Class Certification Stage We are continuing to monitor significant decisions interpreting Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258 (2014) (“Halliburton II”), but the one federal circuit court of appeal decision issued in the first half of 2019 did little to resolve outstanding questions regarding what it will mean for securities litigants. Recall that in Halliburton II, the Supreme Court preserved the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption, permitting plaintiffs to maintain the common proof of reliance that is required for class certification in a Rule 10b-5 case, but also permitting defendants to rebut the presumption at the class certification stage with evidence that the alleged misrepresentation did not impact the issuer’s stock price. There are three key questions we have been following in the wake of Halliburton II. First, how should courts reconcile the Supreme Court’s explicit ruling in Halliburton II that direct and indirect evidence of price impact must be considered at the class certification stage, Halliburton II, 573 U.S. at 283, with the Supreme Court’s previous decisions holding that plaintiffs need not prove loss causation or materiality until the merits stage? See Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804, 815 (2011); Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013). Second, what standard of proof must defendants meet to rebut the presumption with evidence of no price impact? Third, what evidence is required to successfully rebut the presumption? As noted in our 2018 Year-End Securities Litigation Update, the Second Circuit addressed the first two questions in Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) (“Barclays”) and Arkansas Teachers Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 879 F.3d 474 (2d Cir. 2018) (“Goldman Sachs”). Those decisions remain the most substantive interpretations of Halliburton II. Barclays addressed the standard of proof necessary to rebut the presumption of reliance and held that after a plaintiff establishes the presumption of reliance applies, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion to rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. This puts the Second Circuit at odds with the Eighth Circuit, which cited Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence when reversing a trial court’s certification order on price impact grounds, see IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., 818 F.3d 775, 782 (8th Cir. 2016), because Rule 301 assigns only the burden of production—i.e., producing some evidence—to the party seeking to rebut a presumption, but “does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally.” Fed. R. Evid. 301. Nonetheless, that inconsistency was not enough to persuade the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit’s decision.  Barclays PLC v. Waggoner, 138 S. Ct. 1702 (Mem.) (2018) (denying writ of certiorari). In Goldman Sachs, the Second Circuit vacated the trial court’s ruling certifying a class and remanded the action, directing that price impact evidence must be analyzed prior to certification, even if price impact “touches” on the issue of materiality.  Goldman Sachs, 879 F.3d at 486. On remand, the district court again certified the class. In re Goldman Sachs Grp. Sec. Litig., 2018 WL 3854757, at *1–2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2018). Plaintiffs argued on remand that because the company’s stock price declined following the announcement of three regulatory actions related to the company’s conflicts of interest, previous misstatements about its conflicts had inflated the company’s stock price.  See id. at *2. Defendants’ experts testified that correction of the alleged misstatements could not have caused the stock price drops, both because thirty-six similar announcements had not impacted the company’s stock price and because alternative news (i.e., news of regulatory investigations), in fact, caused the price drop. Id. at *3. The court found the plaintiffs’ expert’s “link between the news of [the company]’s conflicts and the subsequent stock price declines . . . sufficient,” and defendants’ expert testimony insufficient to “sever” that link. Id. at *4–6. In January, however, the Second Circuit agreed to review Goldman Sachs for a second time.  See Order, Ark. Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs, Case No. 18-3667 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2019) (“Goldman Sachs II”). In Goldman Sachs II, the Second Circuit is poised to address what evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption and how the analysis is affected by plaintiffs’ assertion that the alleged misstatements’ price impact is evidenced not by a price increase when the alleged misstatement is made, but by a price drop when the alleged misstatements are corrected, known as “price maintenance theory.” Defendants-appellants challenged the district court’s finding in two primary ways. First, they argued that the district court impermissibly extended price maintenance theory. See Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Goldman Sachs II, at 28–52 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2019). They reasoned that a price maintenance theory is unsupportable where the alleged corrective disclosures revealed no concrete financial or operational information that had been hidden from the market for the purpose of maintaining the stock price, see id. at 28–40, and where the challenged statements are too general to have induced reliance (and thus impacted the stock’s price), see id. at 40–50. Second, defendants-appellants argued that the district court misapplied the preponderance of the evidence standard by considering plaintiffs-appellees’ allegations as evidence and misconstruing defendants-appellants’ evidence of no price impact. See id. at 53–67. Plaintiffs-appellees responded that defendants-appellants’ price-maintenance arguments are not supported by law and that such arguments regarding the general nature of the statements are, in essence, a materiality challenge in disguise and thus not appropriate at the class certification stage. Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees, Goldman Sachs II, at 20–30 (2d Cir. Feb. Apr. 19, 2019). Plaintiffs-appellees further argued that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the evidence. Id. at 36–61. Defendants-appellants submitted their reply brief in May, Reply Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Goldman Sachs II (2d Cir. May 3, 2019), and the Second Circuit heard the case in June. Seven amicus briefs were filed in this case, including by the United States Chamber of Commerce and a number of securities law experts supporting defendants-appellants, and by the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems supporting plaintiffs-appellees. Our 2018 Year-End Securities Litigation Update also noted that the Third Circuit was poised to address price impact analysis in Li v. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. in the coming months. Briefing there invited the Third Circuit to clarify the type of evidence defendants must present, including the burden of proof they must meet, to rebut the presumption of reliance at the class certification stage and whether statistical evidence regarding price impact must meet a 95% confidence threshold. The district court had rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s event study rebutted the presumption, and criticized defendants for not offering their own event study. See Li v. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc., 324 F.R.D. 331, 345 (D.N.J. 2018). With limited analysis, the Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its consideration of conflicting expert testimony. Vizirgianakis v. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc., 2019 WL 2305491, at *2–3 (3d Cir. May 30, 2019). We will continue to monitor developments in Goldman Sachs II and other cases. The following Gibson Dunn lawyers assisted in the preparation of this client update:  Jefferson Bell, Monica Loseman, Brian Lutz, Mark Perry, Shireen Barday, Lissa Percopo, Lindsey Young, Mark Mixon, Emily Riff, Jason Hilborn, Andrew Bernstein, Alisha Siqueira, Kaylie Springer, and Collin James Vierra. Gibson Dunn lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments.  Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, or any of the following members of the Securities Litigation practice group steering committee: Brian M. Lutz – Co-Chair, San Francisco/New York (+1 415-393-8379/+1 212-351-3881, blutz@gibsondunn.com) Robert F. Serio – Co-Chair, New York (+1 212-351-3917, rserio@gibsondunn.com) Meryl L. Young – Co-Chair, Orange County (+1 949-451-4229, myoung@gibsondunn.com) Jefferson Bell – New York (+1 212-351-2395, jbell@gibsondunn.com) Jennifer L. Conn – New York (+1 212-351-4086, jconn@gibsondunn.com) Thad A. Davis – San Francisco (+1 415-393-8251, tadavis@gibsondunn.com) Ethan Dettmer – San Francisco (+1 415-393-8292, edettmer@gibsondunn.com) Barry R. Goldsmith – New York (+1 212-351-2440, bgoldsmith@gibsondunn.com) Mark A. Kirsch – New York (+1 212-351-2662, mkirsch@gibsondunn.com) Gabrielle Levin – New York (+1 212-351-3901, glevin@gibsondunn.com) Monica K. Loseman – Denver (+1 303-298-5784, mloseman@gibsondunn.com) Jason J. Mendro – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3726, jmendro@gibsondunn.com) Alex Mircheff – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7307, amircheff@gibsondunn.com) Robert C. Walters – Dallas (+1 214-698-3114, rwalters@gibsondunn.com) Aric H. Wu – New York (+1 212-351-3820, awu@gibsondunn.com) © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

August 15, 2019 |
Gibson Dunn Lawyers Recognized in the Best Lawyers in America® 2020

The Best Lawyers in America® 2020 has recognized 158 Gibson Dunn attorneys in 54 practice areas. Additionally, 48 lawyers were recognized in Best Lawyers International in Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Singapore, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom.

August 13, 2019 |
Getting the Deal Through: Appeals 2019

Washington, D.C. partner Mark Perry and Los Angeles partner Perlette Jura are the contributing editors of “Appeals 2019,” a publication examining Appellate law and procedure between jurisdictions around the globe, published by Getting the Deal Through in June 2019.  Perry and Jura are the authors of the “Global Overview” and the “United States” chapters of the book, and London partners Patrick Doris and Doug Watson and associate Daniel Barnett are the authors of the “United Kingdom” chapter.

July 29, 2019 |
Delaware Supreme Court Revisits Oversight Liability

Click for PDF In a recent decision applying the famous Caremark doctrine, the Delaware Supreme Court confirmed several important legal principles that we expect will play a central role in the future of derivative litigation and that serve as important reminders for boards of directors in performing their oversight responsibilities.  In particular, the Delaware Supreme Court held that a claim for breach of the duty of loyalty is stated where the allegations plead that “a board has undertaken no efforts to make sure it is informed of a compliance issue intrinsically critical to the company’s business operation.”[1] Although the case addressed extreme facts that will have no application to most mature corporations, the plaintiffs’ bar can be expected to attempt to weaponize the decision.  With all the benefits that hindsight provides, derivative plaintiffs will more frequently contend that a board lacked procedures to monitor “central compliance risks” that were “essential and mission critical.”[2]  The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that directors need to implement controls that enable them to monitor the most serious sources of risk, and may even caution in favor of a special discussion each year around critical risks. The Decision Marchand involved problems at Blue Bell Creameries USA, Inc., “a monoline company that makes a single product—ice cream.”[3] After several years of food-safety issues known by management, the company suffered a listeria outbreak. This outbreak led to a product recall, a complete operational shutdown, the layoff of one-third of employees, and three deaths.[4] The operational shutdown, in turn, caused the company to accept a dilutive investment to meet its liquidity needs.[5] After obtaining books and records, a stockholder sued derivatively alleging breach of fiduciary duties under Caremark.[6] That theory requires sufficiently pleading that “the directors utterly failed to implement any reporting or information system or controls” or “having implemented such a system or controls, consciously failed to monitor or oversee its operations thus disabling themselves from being informed of the risks or problems requiring their attention.”[7] The plaintiff, though, chose not to make a demand on the board before suing on behalf of the company, so he was subject to the burden of pleading that making a demand would have been futile. In an effort to do so, he tried to allege that a majority of the board was not independent because it could not act impartially in considering a demand and that the directors also faced liability under Caremark. The Delaware Court of Chancery rejected both arguments, holding that the plaintiff came up one director short on his independence theory and that the plaintiff failed to plead liability under Caremark.[8] The Delaware Supreme Court reversed both holdings.[9] On independence, Chief Justice Strine continued his instruction from Delaware County Employees Retirement Fund v. Sanchez, 124 A.3d 1017 (Del. 2015) and Sandys v. Pincus, 152 A.3d 124 (Del. 2016) that Delaware law “cannot ignore the social nature of humans or that they are motivated by things other than money, such as love, friendship, and collegiality.”[10] “[D]eep and long-standing friendships are meaningful to human beings,” the Chief Justice reasoned, and “any realistic consideration of the question of independence must give weight to these important relationships and their natural effect on the ability of parties to act impartially towards each other.”[11] The director at issue, although recently retired from his role as CFO at the company, owed his “successful career” of 28 years at the company to the family of the CEO whom the director would be asked to sue.[12] And that family “spearheaded” an effort to donate to a local college that resulted in the college naming a new facility after the director.[13] These facts “support[ed] a pleading-stage inference” that the director could not act independently.[14] This was so despite the director’s previously voting against the CEO on whether to split the company’s CEO and Chairman position. Although the Court of Chancery reasoned that this militated against holding that the director was not independent, the Delaware Supreme Court held it was irrelevant to the demand futility analysis.[15] Voting to sue someone, the Supreme Court explained, is “materially different” than voting on corporate-governance issues.[16] The Supreme Court thus held that the number of directors incapable of acting impartially was sufficient to excuse demand. On Caremark liability, the Court focused on the first prong of the Caremark test: whether the board had made any effort to implement a reporting system. It explained that a director “must make a good faith effort” to oversee the company’s operations. “Fail[ing] to make that effort constitutes a breach of the duty of loyalty”[17] and can expose a director to liability. To meet this standard, the board must “try”[18] “to put in place a reasonable system of monitoring and reporting about the corporation’s central compliance risks.”[19] For Blue Bell, food safety was “essential and mission critical”[20] and “the obviously most central consumer safety and legal compliance issue facing the company.”[21] Despite its importance, the complaint contained sufficient facts to infer that no system of board-level compliance monitoring and reporting over food safety existed at the company. For example: “no board committee that addressed food safety existed”; “no regular process or protocols that required management to keep the board apprised of food safety compliance practices, risks, or reports existed”; “no schedule for the board to consider on a regular basis, such as quarterly or biannually, any key food safety risks existed”; “during a key period leading up to the deaths of three customers, management received reports that contained what could be considered red, or at least yellow, flags, and the board minutes of the relevant period revealed no evidence that these were disclosed to the board”; “the board was given certain favorable information about food safety by management, but was not given important reports that presented a much different picture”; and “the board meetings [we]re devoid of any suggestion that there was any regular discussion of food safety issues.”[22] These shortcomings convinced the Delaware Supreme Court that the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient allegations that Blue Bell’s “board ha[d] undertaken no efforts to make sure it [wa]s informed of a compliance issue intrinsically critical to the company’s business operation.” Id. at 33. So the Court could infer that the board “ha[d] not made the good faith effort that Caremark requires.”[23] That management “regularly reported” to the board on “operational issues” was insufficient to demonstrate that the board had made a good faith effort to put in place a reasonable system of monitoring and reporting about Blue Bell’s central compliance risks.[24] So, too, was “the fact that Blue Bell nominally complied with FDA regulations.”[25] Neither of these facts showed that “the board implemented a system to monitor food safety at the board level.”[26] In light of these facts, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff met his “onerous pleading burden” and was entitled to discovery to prove out his Caremark claim.[27] Key Takeaways Independence: Close Personal Ties Increase Litigation Risk Directors should be aware that the greater the level of close personal or business relationships amongst themselves, management, and even each other’s families, the greater risk they face of being held incapable of exercising their business judgment in a demand futility analysis, even in circumstances where they have plainly demonstrated independent or dissenting judgment on corporate-governance matters. Caremark Increased Litigation Risk over Compliance Efforts Derivative Litigation. Although Caremark claims will remain “the most difficult theory in corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a judgment,”[28] we expect an increase in attempted derivative litigation over a purported lack of board-level monitoring systems for specific risks as plaintiffs try to shoehorn as many standard business and non-business risks as possible into Marchand’s “essential and mission critical” risk category. Whereas to date many Caremark claims have focused on the second prong of the standard—alleging that a board consciously failed to monitor or oversee the operation of its reporting system or controls and by ignoring red flags disabled themselves from being informed of risks or problems requiring their attention—Marchand likely will focus plaintiffs on the first prong: whether in particular areas a board failed to implement any reporting or information system or controls. The plaintiffs’ bar is bound to focus on the full array of corporate risks, including many that are not correctly characterized as “central compliance risks” for most companies. These areas could range from risks disclosed in the company’s SEC filings to cultural issues, like harassment or bullying, and more broader environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues. Books and Records Litigation. Similarly, we expect a rise in Section 220 books and records demands seeking to investigate a board’s specific oversight of central compliance risks. Assessing Central Compliance Risks Marchand does not change the core principle that a company’s board of directors is responsible for seeing that the company has systems in place to provide the board with information that is sufficient to allow directors to perform their oversight responsibilities. This includes information about major risks facing the company. The Delaware Supreme Court emphasized in Marchand that these systems can be “context- and industry-specific approaches tailored to . . . companies’ business and resources.”[29] Accordingly, boards have wide latitude in designing systems that work for them. In light of this, boards should be comfortable that they understand the “central compliance risks” facing their companies. They should satisfy themselves that they are receiving, on an appropriate schedule, reports from management and elsewhere on these central risks and what management is doing to manage those risks. In recent years, many boards have devoted significant time to thinking about how best to allocate responsibility for risk oversight at the board level. Boards should be comfortable that there is adequate coverage, among the full board and its committees, of the major compliance and other risks facing the corporation, and that the full board is receiving appropriate reports from responsible committees, as well as from management. They also should periodically evaluate the most effective methods for monitoring “essential and mission critical” risk to their companies, even where these risks do not relate directly to operational issues, and whether the current committee structure, charters, and meeting schedules are appropriate. These efforts, reports, and discussions should be documented. Boards should establish systems so that management provides them with an adequate picture of compliance risks. In Marchand, although management received many reports about food-safety issues, “this information never made its way to the board.”[30] Boards should remain mindful of the second prong in Caremark by overseeing the company’s response when they are informed of risks or problems requiring their attention. When reporting systems or other developments demonstrate that risks are becoming manifest, directors should assess whether a need exists to implement a heightened system of monitoring, such as setting additional meetings and requiring additional reports from management about the steps the company is taking to address the risk. Boards should hesitate to leave the response entirely to management. Documenting the Board’s Work Minutes of board meetings, and board materials, should not just reflect the “good news.” Instead, they should demonstrate that the board received appropriate information about issues and challenges facing the company, and that the board spent time discussing those issues and challenges. The goal should be to create a balanced record demonstrating diligent oversight by the board, while recognizing that those minutes could be produced in litigation. ________________________    [1]   Marchand v. Barnhill, No. 533, 2018, slip op. at 33 (Del. June 18, 2019).    [2]   Id. at 36.    [3]   Id. at 5.    [4]   Id. at 1.    [5]   Id.    [6]   Id. at 19.    [7]   Stone v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362, 370 (Del. 2006).    [8]   Marchand, No. 533, 2018, slip op. at 20-23.    [9]   Id. at 3. [10]   Id. at 25. [11]   Id. at 28. [12]   Id. at 26. [13]   Id. [14]   Id. at 29. [15]   Id. at 27. [16]   Id. [17]   Id. at 37. [18]   Id. at 30. [19]   Id. at 36 (emphasis added). [20]   Id. [21]   Id. at 37. [22]   Id. at 32-33. [23]   Id. [24]   Id. at 35-36. [25]   Id. at 34. [26]   Id. [27]   Id. at 37. [28]   Stone v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362, 372 (Del. 2006). [29]   Marchand, No. 533, 2018, slip op. at 30. [30]   Id. at 12. Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist with any questions you may have regarding these issues. For further information, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s Securities Litigation or Securities Regulation and Corporate Governance practice groups, or the authors in Washington, D.C.: Securities Litigation Group: Andrew S. Tulumello (+1 202-955-8657, atulumello@gibsondunn.com) Jason J. Mendro (+1 202-887-3726, jmendro@gibsondunn.com) Jason H. Hilborn (+1 202-955-8276, jhilborn@gibsondunn.com) Securities Regulation and Corporate Governance Group: Elizabeth Ising (+1 202-955-8287, eising@gibsondunn.com) Ronald O. Mueller (+1 202-955-8671, rmueller@gibsondunn.com) Gillian McPhee (+1 202-955-8201, gmcphee@gibsondunn.com) Please also feel free to contact any of the following leaders of the Securities Litigation group: Brian M. Lutz – Co-Chair, San Francisco/New York (+1 415-393-8379/+1 212-351-3881, blutz@gibsondunn.com) Robert F. Serio – Co-Chair, New York (+1 212-351-3917, rserio@gibsondunn.com) Meryl L. Young – Co-Chair, Orange County (+1 949-451-4229, myoung@gibsondunn.com) © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

July 26, 2019 |
New UK Prime Minister – what has happened?

Click for PDF Boris Johnson has won the Conservative leadership race and is the new Prime Minister of the UK. Having been supported by a majority of Conservative MPs, this week the former mayor of London won a 66% share (92,153 votes) in the ballot of Conservative party members. Although there is some criticism of the fact that the new Prime Minister has been elected by such a narrow constituency, it is the case that most political parties in the UK now select their leaders by way of a members ballot. As things stand, the UK is due to leave the European Union (EU) at 23:00 GMT on 31 October 2019. Boris Johnson’s new Cabinet, and the 17 related departures, has set a new tone of determination to leave the EU by that date with or without a deal – “no ifs or buts”. Although only 12 of the 31 members of the new Cabinet originally voted to leave the EU, these “Brexiteer” MPs now dominate the senior Cabinet positions. The newly elected President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has however indicated she is willing to support another extension to Brexit talks. In Parliament the Conservatives govern in alliance with the Northern Irish DUP and can only stay in power with the support of the House of Commons. Following defections earlier in the year and the recent suspension of a Conservative MP facing criminal charges, the Government now has an overall working majority of only two MPs (and if, as expected, the Conservatives lose a by-election on 1 August, the Government’s working majority will fall to one). A number of the members of Prime Minister May’s Government who resigned before Boris Johnson took office have made it clear that they will do everything they can to prevent the UK leaving without a deal including voting against the Government. There is therefore a heightened prospect of a general election. This theory is supported by the appointment as Special Adviser to the Prime Minister of political strategist Dominic Cummings who was the chief architect of the campaign to leave the EU in 2016. There has been some debate about whether the new Prime Minister would prorogue Parliament (effectively suspending it) to prevent it stopping a no deal Brexit. That would undoubtedly trigger a constitutional crisis but, despite the rhetoric, it feels like an unlikely outcome. Indeed Parliament recently passed a vote to block that happening. It is difficult to tell where the mood of the House of Commons is today compared to earlier in the year when Prime Minister May’s deal was voted down three times. Since then both the Conservative and Labour parties suffered significant losses in the EU election in May. The new Brexit Party which campaigned to leave made significant gains, as did the Liberal Democrats who have a clear policy to remain in the EU. The opinion polls suggest that, if an election was called today, no party would gain overall control of the House of Commons. It is just possible, however, that some MPs on both sides of the House who previously voted against the May deal would now support something similar, particularly to avoid a no-deal exit from the EU. It may be the case that Boris Johnson, who led the campaign to leave the EU, is the last chance those supporting Brexit have to get Brexit through Parliament. If he fails then either a second referendum or a general election will probably follow. It is not clear what the result of a second referendum would be but it is likely that Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP would all campaign to remain. The EU has consistently said that it will not reopen Prime Minister May’s Withdrawal Agreement although the non-binding political declaration is open to negotiation. The so-called “Irish backstop” remains the most contentious issue. The backstop is intended to guarantee no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland but Boris Johnson is concerned it could “trap” the UK in a customs union with the EU. Boris Johnson claims that technology and “trusted trader schemes” means that checks can be made without the need for a hard border. Others, including the EU, remain to be convinced. Parliament has now gone into recess until 3 September 2019 and then, mid-September, there will be another Parliamentary break for the two week party conference season. The Conservative Party Conference on 29 September – a month before the UK’s scheduled exit from the EU – will be a key political moment for the new Prime Minister to report back to the party supporters who elected him. Finally, it is not clear what “no deal” really means. Even if the UK leaves without adopting the current Withdrawal Agreement, it is likely that a series of “mini deals” would be put in place to cover security, air traffic control, etc. A new trading agreement would then still need to be negotiated to establish the ongoing EU-UK relationship. And the issue of the Northern Irish border will still need to be resolved. This client alert was prepared by Charlie Geffen, Ali Nikpay and Anne MacPherson in London. We have a working group in London (led by Patrick Doris, Charlie Geffen, Ali Nikpay and Selina Sagayam) addressing Brexit related issues.  Please feel free to contact any member of the working group or any of the other lawyers mentioned below. Ali Nikpay – Antitrust ANikpay@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4273 Charlie Geffen – Corporate CGeffen@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4225 Sandy Bhogal – Tax SBhogal@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4266 Philip Rocher – Litigation PRocher@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4202 Jeffrey M. Trinklein – Tax JTrinklein@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4224 Patrick Doris – Litigation; Data Protection PDoris@gibsondunn.com Tel:  020 7071 4276 Alan Samson – Real Estate ASamson@gibsondunn.com Tel:  020 7071 4222 Penny Madden QC – Arbitration PMadden@gibsondunn.com Tel:  020 7071 4226 Selina Sagayam – Corporate SSagayam@gibsondunn.com Tel:  020 7071 4263 Thomas M. Budd – Finance TBudd@gibsondunn.com Tel:  020 7071 4234 James A. Cox – Employment; Data Protection JCox@gibsondunn.com Tel: 020 7071 4250 Gregory A. Campbell – Restructuring GCampbell@gibsondunn.com Tel:  020 7071 4236 © 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

July 26, 2019 |
Greta Williams Named Among 2019 D.C. Rising Stars

The National Law Journal named Washington, D.C. partner Greta Williams among its 2019 D.C. Rising Stars, featuring 40 attorneys who have “excelled on some of the biggest stages.” The list was published on July 24, 2019. Greta Williams represents clients in a wide range of employment matters, including those involving non-competition agreements and trade secrets, executive employment disputes, wage-hour and discrimination laws, and whistleblower protection laws. She has also handled numerous employment-related investigations, including investigations involving sexual harassment allegations and the possible misappropriation of trade secrets.