recent trends in m erger objection litigation
play

Recent Trends in M erger Objection Litigation J udicial Fatigue - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Recent Trends in M erger Objection Litigation J udicial Fatigue [This case] is an example of a now too common invocation of the iconic Revlon case in a circumstance where the key problem in Revlon board resistance to the highest


  1. Recent Trends in M erger Objection Litigation ♦ J udicial Fatigue ♦ “ [This case] is an example of a now too common invocation of the iconic Revlon case in a circumstance where the key problem in Revlon – board resistance to the highest bidder based on a bias against that bidder – is entirely absent.” M orton’s Restaurant Group Inc. Shareholders’ Litigation, 2013 Del. Ch. Lexis 188 (Del. Ch. July 23, 2013) ♦ Dispositive M otion Success for Defendants ♦ M orton’s Restaurant Group Inc. Shareholders’ Litigation, 2013 Del. Ch. Lexis 188 (Del. Ch. July 23, 2013) (motion to dismiss). ♦ M iramar Firefighters Pension Fund et al. v. Abovenet, Inc., 2013 Del. Ch. Lexis 200 (Del. Ch. July 31, 2013) (motion to dismiss). ♦ SE Penn. Transp. Auth. v. Volgenau et al., 2013 Del. Ch. Lexis 197 (Del. Ch. Aug. 5, 2013) (motion for summary judgment). 1

  2. Recent Trends in M erger Objection Litigation ♦ In response to increased frequency of merger objection suits, some insurers seeking to increase SIRs. ♦ Example: “ Section X, Limit of Liability and Retentions is amended by adding the following: Solely with respect to any M erger or Acquisition Claim made against any Insured for any actual or alleged Wrongful Acts , the Insurer shall only be liable for the amount of Loss arising from such M erger or Acquisition Claim which is in excess of the applicable Retention amount stated below [higher than regular SIR for Side B and Side C]. The Retention amount shall be borne by the Company with regard to all such Loss , provided, however, no retention amount shall apply with regard to any Loss under Coverage A of this Policy.” ♦ Underwriters report getting traction in market with SIRs of $1 - $1.5 million for mid-market insureds. 2

  3. Selected Cases filed from J une – August 2013 ♦ Suits are increasingly frequent, with increasingly higher costs. ♦ Hulsebus et al. v. Belo Corp., et al. (Dallas County, TX) ($2.2B deal) ♦ Liu v. Asianfo-Linkage, Inc., et al. (Del. Ch.) ($890M deal) ♦ Crescente v. StellarOne Corp., et al. (W.D. VA) ($445M deal) ♦ M artin v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co. (D.N.J.) ($8.5B deal) ♦ Federman v. M aidenform Brands Inc., et al. (Del. Ch.) (575M deal) ♦ Fosket v. Brynes et al. (Del. Ch.) ($2.3B deal) ♦ Oliver v. Saks Inc., et al. (N.Y . Sup.) ($3B deal) ♦ Ansfield et al. v. Wren et al. (N.Y . Sup.) ($35B deal) Dyer et al. v. M inark et al. (Fla. 11 th Judicial Circuit) ($285M deal) ♦ ♦ Josenhans v. Sourcefire Inc., et al. (D. M d) ($2.7B deal) ♦ Biedler v. Stein et al. (Del. Ch.) ($818M deal) 3

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend