The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision that may prevent the expansion of scheme liability under the federal securities laws. The SEC brought scheme liability allegations against Rio Tinto, its CEO, and its CFO, based on their alleged failure to correct prior materially misleading statements that had
Joseph Hartunian
Contact:Read more about Joseph Hartunian
Tractor Supply Gets Lift from Court with Diversity Suit Dismissal
By Joseph Hartunian on
Earlier this spring, yet another lawsuit alleging a company failed to adequately promote diversity was dismissed for a failure to properly allege demand futility.
In City of Pontiac Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Jamison, the plaintiff, a shareholder of Tractor Supply Company, had alleged that the company and members of its Board falsely stated in securities filings that they were committed to promoting diversity. The plaintiff alleged that diversity maximizes shareholder wealth and that the lack of racial diversity at Tractor Supply contributed to economic disparities at the company. Because, according to the plaintiff, the defendants had failed to sufficiently promote diversity within the company while, at the same time, made statements in Tractor Supply’s 2020 proxy statement that the Board was “committed to the principles of diversity and inclusion,” they had violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.
Cisco Diversity Suit Dismissed
By Joseph Hartunian on
Another shareholder derivative suit claiming diversity shortcomings within the company was dismissed last week: A judge in the Northern District of California dismissed allegations that Cisco Systems Inc. falsely and improperly represented itself as an industry leader in diversity.
Seventh Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Derivative Action Based on Forum Clause as Applied to Federal Claim
By Jonathan Richman & Joseph Hartunian on
A recent Seventh Circuit decision in Seafarers Pension Plan v. Bradway may complicate defendants’ ability to use forum-selection bylaws as a basis for dismissal of derivative suits pleading claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Qualcomm Escapes Diversity Suit
By Joseph Hartunian on
Another diversity-based derivative suit was dismissed this week by a federal district court, joining a list of decisions that have rejected similar shareholder allegations.
This most recent decision, from the District of Delaware, dismissed claims alleging Qualcomm Inc. had allowed unlawful and discriminatory practices to exist within its executive ranks. Though the complaint was initially filed in the Southern District of California, Qualcomm’s Bylaws contain a forum-selection provision designating Delaware as the exclusive forum for derivative litigation, and thus the case was transferred to Delaware in March 2021.
Disgorgement Continues at the SEC
By Joseph Hartunian on
On October 12, 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a disgorgement order issued by the SEC, in—according to the opinion— the first appellate ruling on the topic since the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Liu v. SEC.
Another Diversity Suit Stifled
By Joseph Hartunian on
Last week, yet another federal court dismissed a shareholder derivative suit that claimed a company had failed to diversify its corporate leadership team. Shareholders had alleged that Opko Health Inc., a Miami-based medical company, failed to nominate or appoint minorities to the board and executive management team despite public statements celebrating the company’s diverse staff.
SEC Greenlights Board Diversity Requirements
By Joseph Hartunian on
After much debate, the SEC on Friday approved a Nasdaq proposal that will require listed companies to adopt several diversity-related measures. Nasdaq first made this proposal, which requires listed companies to publicly disclose diversity information about their board members and either hire “diverse” members to their boards or explain why they do not in writing, last December. Under SEC regulations, self-regulatory organizations such as Nasdaq must formally submit proposed rule changes to the Commission. Nasdaq made some minor revisions to the proposed rule in February that granted smaller boards and newly listed companies some compliance leeway, but the proposal has otherwise survived scrutiny from conservatives, corporate interests, and popular newspaper editorial boards.