Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Long accepted in Delaware (and in courts throughout the country), “disclosure-only” settlements were common in lawsuits brought by stockholders of a corporation sold in an M&A transaction. These lawsuits alleged that directors of the seller breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the sale price and process, and through allegedly deficient proxy materials provided to stockholders in connection with their vote on the deal. In disclosure-only settlements, the seller would agree to provide additional disclosures in advance of the stockholder vote on the transaction. As part of these settlements, all defendants typically would obtain the benefit of a broad release of liability of all claims and potential claims (not limited to disclosure claims), and the plaintiff lawyers would typically obtain a fee for obtaining a benefit for the putative class of stockholders in the form of the additional disclosures (whether helpful to stockholders or not). Many M&A participants came to view these fees as a customary “deal tax” required to be paid by the buyer as part of the transaction price.
Criticism of disclosure-only settlements from the Chancery Court has been building for years, beginning perhaps with then-Chancellor Leo E. Strine Jr.'s rejection of a proposed disclosure-only settlement in the In re Transatlantic Holdings Shareholders Litigation , C.A. 6574-CS (Feb. 28, 2013), case in 2013. More recently, decisions in Acevedo v. Aeroflex Holding, C.A. No. 9730-VCL, In re Riverbed Technology Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10484-VCG (Del. Ch. Sept. 17, 2015), In re Susser Holdings Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 9613-VCG (Del. Ch. Sept. 15, 2015), In re Aruba Networks Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10765-VCL (Transcript Ruling, Oct. 9, 2015), and In re Silicon Image Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10601-VCG, reflected the Chancery Court's deep skepticism of disclosure-only settlements.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
On Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.