• PRO
  • Events
  • About Blog Popular
  • Login
  • Register
  • PRO
  • Resources
    • Latest updates
    • Q&A
    • In-depth
    • In-house view
    • Practical resources
    • FromCounsel New
    • Commentary
  • Resources
  • Research
    • Legal research hub
    • Primary sources
    • Scanner: regulatory tracking
    • Lexy: powerful AI search
    • Research reports
    • Explore all
  • Research
  • Learn
    • All
    • Webinars
    • Videos
  • Learn
  • Experts
    • Find experts
    • Influencers
    • Client Choice New
    • Firms
    • About
    Introducing Instruct Counsel
    The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
  • Experts
  • My newsfeed
  • Events
  • About
  • Blog
  • Popular
  • Legal research hub
  • Primary sources
  • Scanner: regulatory tracking
  • Lexy: powerful AI search
  • Research reports
  • Explore all
  • Find experts
  • Influencers
  • Client Choice New
  • Firms
  • About
Introducing Instruct Counsel
The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
  • Compare
  • Topics
  • Interviews
  • Guides

Analytics

Review your content's performance and reach.

  • Analytics dashboard
  • Top articles
  • Top authors
  • Who's reading?

Content Development

Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.

  • Trending Topics
  • Discover Content
  • Horizons
  • Ideation

Client Intelligence

Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.

  • Track Sectors
  • Track Clients
  • Mandates
  • Discover Companies
  • Reports Centre

Competitor Intelligence

Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.

  • Benchmarking
  • Competitor Mandates
Home

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact [email protected]

Register

Financial Services Update, Vol. 14, Issue 17

Winston & Strawn LLP

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

If you can't read this PDF, you can view its text here. Go back to the PDF .

USA April 29 2019

Following oral arguments earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Emulex Corporation v. Varjabedian on April 23rd that it will not consider a securities fraud lawsuit involving the acquisition of semiconductor company Emulex Corporation.

In a putative class action stemming from a 2015 merger between Emulex and Avago Technologies Wireless Manufacturing Inc., a former Emulex shareholder alleged violations of Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with Emulex’s recommendation that its shareholders accept a takeover tender offer from Avago. According to the shareholder, in stating that the deal was fair to investors, Emulex improperly failed to disclose a price analysis that was utilized by the company’s investment bank. In 2016, a district court dismissed the shareholder’s claim with prejudice, determining that Section 14(e) necessitates a showing of scienter, which the court found the shareholder failed to adequately plead.

On appeal in 2018, the Ninth Circuit of Court of Appeals addressed the proper mental state standard for Section 14(e) claims and instituted a standard of “negligence.” The panel reversed the district court’s decision, ruling that, in filing a private right of action, Emulex shareholders did not need to show that the company knew that their disclosures were faulty but instead only needed to claim that defendants acted negligently. Five other circuits disagreed with the Ninth Circuit’s determination, finding that such plaintiffs must show that defendants acted with an intent to defraud. The Supreme Court at that point granted Emulex’s writ of certiorari to resolve the disagreement between the circuits.

At this month’s oral argument, shareholder counsel Daniel Geyser argued that Emulex waived the question of shareholders’ right to sue when its case was before the Ninth Circuit, and asked that the justices not go beyond the narrow question that Emulex offered in its petition for Supreme Court review, which was whether shareholders must prove fraudulent intent or mere negligence in class actions over tender offer disclosures. The Supreme Court ultimately withdrew its consideration on the issue of whether shareholders in tender offer cases must only claim that defendants had acted in a negligent manner instead of with an intent to defraud. In a one-sentence order, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari and simply stated that its previous decision to review the case was “improvidently granted.”

Although the Court issued its opinion without offering an explanation, Reuters speculated that the justices sided with Emulex’s arguments that it would be senseless to rule narrowly on the appropriate pleading standard for a shareholder’s tender offer lawsuits when the viability of such class actions is uncertain. Reuters further surmised that the Court agreed with shareholder counsel Geyser that the instant case is not the proper vehicle for determining whether a shareholder may sue over tender offer disclosures. Other observers supposed that the Court found it premature to rule on the idea of the “private right of action,” since that concept has not been previously decided upon.

According to SCOTUSblog, although the Supreme Court had previously routinely considered that private rights of action are “implied” within federal securities laws, it has more recently seen that practice as interfering with Congress’ authority to define causes of action that can be considered by federal courts. However, as Emulex did not raise that argument in the lower courts, some of the Supreme Court justices found that a decision looking at the broader question of whether there should be a private right of action would reward defendants for not bringing up that question to the lower courts. As a result, the SCOTUSBlog suggested, the Supreme Court’s April 23rd dismissal gives it the opportunity to delay consideration of the broader question until that question has been directly presented.

Winston & Strawn LLP - Halima A. Nguyen and Basil V. Godellas

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • USA
  • Banking
  • Capital Markets
  • Company & Commercial
  • Litigation
  • Winston & Strawn LLP

Laws

  • Securities Exchange Act 1934 (USA)

Organisations

  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (USA)
  • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (USA)

Courts

  • SCOTUS
  • Ninth Circuit

Popular articles from this firm

  1. Selling your business: why private equity can be the best buyer *
  2. FTC launches “Operation Full Disclosure”; sends warning letters to over 60 national advertisers *
  3. First Lawsuit Filed for Tesla Autopilot-Related Death Involving a Pedestrian *
  4. Amazon laws: an overview of state laws and proposed federal legislation *
  5. SEC renews focus on insider trading in private company stock *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].

Powered by Lexology

Related practical resources PRO

  • How-to guide How–to guide: How to assess suppliers for modern slavery risk (UK)
  • Checklist Checklist: Reducing the risk of Coronavirus (COVID-19) - guidance for employers (UK)
  • Checklist Checklist: Remote working - minimising cybersecurity risks (UK)

Related research hubs

  • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (USA)
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (USA)
  • USA
  • Company & Commercial
  • Capital Markets
Back to Top
Resources
  • Daily newsfeed
  • Commentary
  • Q&A
  • Research hubs
  • Learn
  • In-depth
  • Lexy: AI search
Experts
  • Find experts
  • Legal Influencers
  • Firms
  • About Instruct Counsel
More
  • About us
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
Legal
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
Contact
  • Contact
  • RSS feeds
  • Submissions
 
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn

© Copyright 2006 - 2022 Law Business Research

Law Business Research