Securities Class Action Filings at an All-Time High

Aug 1, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

One reason for the increased federal filings is the apparent shift of merger and acquisitions (M&A) suits out of Delaware state court and into federal court. In January 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery in In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation announced that it would generally no longer approve “disclosure only” settlements in merger objection lawsuits. In Trulia and similar cases, the Chancery Court expressed its disdain for such settlements, which often involve threats by plaintiffs to enjoin a merger followed by quick settlements that award fees to the plaintiffs’ attorneys while precluding future litigation on the merger with only nominal benefits to the stockholders through added disclosures.

Since the Trulia decision, M&A filings have been on the rise in federal courts. In the 3rd Circuit alone, there were 23 M&A filings in the first half of 2017. That is more than all 3rd Circuit M&A filings from 2009 through 2015 combined. The U.S. District Court of Delaware was the leading contributor to this increase, accounting for 16 M&A filings, the most such filings of any district court in the first half of 2017.

However, even discounting this increase in M&A litigation, the first six months of 2017 still saw more securities class action filings than any other six-month period. In fact, every industry experienced an increase in filings in the first half of 2017 compared to the previous six-month period, as well as the historical average. The largest contributor was the Consumer Non-Cyclical sector, which consists primarily of cases involving biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and health care companies. There were 85 filings in that sector in the first half of 2017, compared to 66 in the second half of 2016, and a historical average of 25 per half from 1997-2016. Filings against non-U.S. companies also appear to be on the rise.

In addition to having the most securities class action filings on record, the first half of 2017 also had the fastest filings. In the first six months of 2017, the “median filing lag” was only eight days for non-M&A filings. This period refers to the number of days between the end of a class period and the filing date of the securities class action. The median filing lag period for non-M&A cases has generally been shortening since the first half of 2012, when it was 45 days. The 2017 median lag period has been the quickest yet at eight days.

The Cornerstone report comes on the heels of another recent report by Securities Class Action Services naming 2016 as the biggest year ever for U.S. securities class action settlements. While that trend may continue in the near future due to previously filed cases, the first half of 2017 saw proportionately fewer “mega” cases compared to 2016 and other prior years. Filings in the first half of 2017 also have noticeably lower median disclosure dollar losses and maximum dollar losses per filing, which indicates a generally lower amount in controversy per case. Accordingly, the historically high filing numbers in 2017 appear to be driven by relatively smaller cases.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.