John is joined by Jesse Bernstein, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York Office and Co-Chair of the Securities Litigation Practice. Jesse explains that the term “securities” applies not only to stocks and bonds, but arguably to any situation where a group of investors place their resources into a common entity where they expect to make profits from the efforts of others. He describes the sources of securities law, including state blue sky laws, the Securities Act of 1933 (which focuses on initial issuances), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which focuses on intentional misrepresentations in securities transactions and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (which sought to curb perceived abuses in securities litigation by raising the pleading standards required to establish scienter and creating a safe harbor for forward looking statements). They discuss the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Moab Partners v. Macquarie Infrastructure that pure omissions of material fact are not actionable under Rule 10(b)(5) because the rule only covers affirmative misstatements. Jesse then explains how a Quinn Emanuel team obtained a jury verdict last year in Elon Musk’s favor in a rare securities class action trial on a $12 billion claim based on Mr. Musk’s tweet about taking Tesla private. He describes the arguments made concerning materiality and loss causation that ultimately led to the victory. Finally, they discuss upcoming issues in securities law including how the Macquarie decision will impact cases.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John Quinn is joined by Michael Barlow, Managing Partner and Founding Member of Quinn Emanuel’s Wilmington, Delaware office. They discuss the evolving state of Delaware corporate law and the legislative response to growing dissatisfaction among corporations over the recent legal treatment of conflicted transactions. Traditionally, Delaware law has deferred in general to corporate decision-making under the business judgment rule, but rigorously reviewed transactions involving conflicts of interest—particularly those involving controlling shareholders—under an “entire fairness review.” Entire fairness reviews are fact-intensive and include scrutinizing both the process and terms of the transaction, making early dismissal of claims rare. In response, Delaware courts developed a safe harbor called the “MFW” framework. The “MFW” framework involved approval by a special committee of disinterested directors and the minority shareholders. Still, even under the MFW framework, motions to dismiss were granted in fewer than 40% of cases, leading to frustration among deal planners.

Despite these odds, a Quinn Emanuel team led by Michael recently won a rare complete dismissal of an entire fairness case on behalf of Fidelity National Financial, Inc. In that case, the court ruled that there were no alleged facts that could support the conclusion that the preferred stock transaction at issue was unfair.

Frustration among corporate deal planners with what was perceived as activist judicial decisions creating uncertainty (e.g., as to what was a “controlling stockholder,” among other things) has recently led to Tesla, Dropbox and other corporations to express their intent to leave Delaware as their state of incorporation. “DExit,” is the term coined to describe this trend. To address these concerns, Delaware enacted Senate Bill 21, a bipartisan effort to clarify and narrow the standards for conflicted transactions. The legislation provides clearer definitions of controlling stockholders and establishes safe harbors for dismissing cases early if certain procedural protections are followed. It also reforms the state’s books-and-records statute (Section 220) by limiting the scope of pre-suit corporate document demands. The next few years will test how effectively the new legislation meets the corporate world’s demand for greater legal certainty. Finally, Michael believes that Delaware will continue to lead the nation in corporate law due to its unparalleled legal infrastructure and judicial expertise.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Christopher Padilla, Senior Advisor at the Brunswick Group and former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade. They discuss the recent lawsuits challenging President Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The IEEPA is a 1977 statute traditionally used to freeze assets or impose sanctions in wartime or against adversaries. Until now, IEEPA has never been used to impose tariffs, and does not mention the word "tariff." Multiple lawsuits challenging the tariffs have been filed in various courts, including several U.S. district courts and the Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT, a court traditionally deferential to presidential authority over trade, is moving faster than other courts. It has already denied one preliminary injunction and scheduled initial arguments concerning standing and jurisdiction. The administration has moved to consolidate the challenges filed in district courts with those in the CIT. Plaintiffs range from state governments and Native American tribes to small businesses. The cases largely challenge the President’s authority to issue the tariffs on four main grounds: (1) the IEEPA does not authorize tariffs; (2) the President must have clear congressional authorization to increase the tariffs under the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine; (3) the tariffs violate the constitutional separation of powers and nondelegation doctrine; and (4) the declared "emergencies" used to justify the tariffs—such as immigration or the trade deficit—are not genuine emergencies under the IEEPA. Even if the plaintiffs in these cases prevail, the administration could still reimpose tariffs under other delegated statutory authorities, although proceeding under those authorities will involve several procedural hurdles. Ultimately, Christopher believes that real change would require congressional action, which is unlikely in the short term, and that any rollback of tariffs may depend more on economic developments such as recession, stagflation or a collapse of the bond market than on court rulings.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi