United States: Proxy Season Brings A Third Wave Of "Gotcha" Shareholder Litigation

Proxy season is upon us and the plaintiffs' bar is demonstrating its resourcefulness by bringing a third wave of shareholder litigation. This new wave, which has not crested yet, consists of a return to derivative shareholder suits but no longer concerning say-on-pay votes. Instead, these lawsuits are focused on "gotcha" allegations that companies issued stock options or restricted stock units to executives in amounts that exceed the limits of those companies' stock plans. These lawsuits are easily preventable with careful planning by Compensation Committees and their in-house and outside counsel to ensure that all stock grants and executive compensation proposals are in compliance with the company's stock plan.

Since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act on July 21, 2010 ("Dodd-Frank Act"), which requires a say-on-pay advisory vote on executive compensation, the plaintiffs' securities bar has been busy filing lawsuits and issuing press releases "investigating" companies concerning say-on-pay votes and/or executive compensation matters. As discussed in our November 19, 2012 Client Alert, Plaintiffs' Firms Gaining Steam in New Wave of Say-on-Pay Shareholder Suits?, there have been two distinct waves of shareholder litigation over the past couple of years. Now, there has been a third one consisting of derivative shareholder suits alleging that companies approved executive compensation in violation of stock plans.

First Wave Peaked in the Third Quarter of 2011: Derivative Shareholder Suits Following Failed Say-on-Pay Vote

After say-on-pay advisory votes became required, few companies have had shareholder votes that did not approve the proposed executive compensation arrangements. Specifically, only 57 out of 2215 companies (2.6%) had such failed say-on-pay votes in 2012. Many of those companies approved the executive compensation subject to the failed say-on-pay vote and quite a few of those companies were targeted with derivative shareholder litigation. Shareholders have sued 22 companies with failed say-on-pay votes. Shareholders sued 15 of 43 companies (35%) with failed say-on-pay votes in 2011 and 4 out of 57 companies (7%) with failed say-on-pay votes in 2012. Those actions generally alleged that boards of directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving executive compensation arrangements that shareholders did not approve in their non-binding, advisory vote. They peaked in the third quarter of 2011 and none have been filed since a few stragglers were filed in the third quarter of 2012.

As indicated in the Appendices, courts have dismissed 50% of these cases on motions to dismiss for two primary reasons. First, these suits failed to plead that plaintiffs were excused from the pre-suit requirement of making a demand on the board of directors to bring suit. Second, courts recognized that a say-on-pay vote is purely advisory and non-binding on boards of directors. Several of those decisions are on appeal. In addition, 18.5% of the cases have settled with some resulting in very significant attorneys' fees awards. 27% of the suits are still pending. These cases have been filed all over the United States, with California, Delaware and Texas courts being the most popular.

Second Wave Peaked in the Fourth Quarter of 2012: Putative Class Actions to Enjoin Annual Meetings

The plaintiffs' central allegation is inadequate disclosure of executive compensation matters in proxy statements, which justifies enjoining the annual shareholder meeting. A significant part of the second wave included a blizzard of press releases targeting 73 companies by plaintiffs' law firms which contended that they were "investigating" executive compensation matters. Of course, such press releases often are issued to dig up a shareholder of the target company who could serve as a figurehead plaintiff in a lawsuit and/or to terrorize the targeted company with imminent litigation to disrupt the timing of the annual meeting.

Only a small percentage of the companies targeted by "investigatory" press releases actually were sued. Of the 73 companies targeted, 13 companies eventually were sued and an additional 9 companies were the subject of litigation without the issuance of any "investigatory" press release. As indicated in the Appendices, 37% of the cases resulted in a denial of a motion for preliminary injunction and 18% of the cases were voluntarily dismissed. 27% of these cases have been settled prior to a ruling on a preliminary injunction motion, with settlements consisting of enhancements to disclosures in proxy statements coupled with cash payments of attorneys' fees. Unsurprisingly, a large chunk of these cases, 32%, are pending – even after denial of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motions.

In those cases in which motions for preliminary injunction were defeated, courts found that there would be no irreparable injury should the annual meeting proceed as scheduled. A critical component appears to be an expert declaration from a Stanford professor in support of the company's disclosures in the proxy statement. While the preliminary injunction may have been defeated and no disruption to the annual meeting schedule occurred, those cases have not yet been dismissed. There are a number of motions to dismiss pending in those cases, and it remains to be seen if those motions will be successful or if courts will require discovery to proceed.

As indicated in the Appendices, these cases have been filed all over the United States, with California and New York courts being the most popular.

Second Wave May Have Resulted in Non-Public, Individual Settlements Prior to the Initiation of Litigation

Press articles and statements from lawyers at other law firms indicate anecdotal evidence that some of the second wave suits may have been settled on an individual, rather than class-wide, basis prior to the filing of litigation. In order to evaluate the truth of these assertions, we evaluated whether the 60 companies targeted by an "investigatory" press release from the plaintiffs' bar and which subsequently were not sued may have issued enhanced disclosures on executive compensation matters in their proxy statements prior to scheduled annual meetings. Our review indicated that there were 6 companies that did issue enhanced disclosures concerning executive compensation matters. This enhanced disclosure could have been in response to the issuance of the press release in an attempt to fend off actual litigation or it could have been consideration for an individual settlement or a response to a shareholder's letter or demand to a company's board of directors to investigate executive compensation matters.

If these augmented disclosures formed the basis for an individual, out-of-court settlement, such settlements likely would consist of those disclosures and a cash payment for attorneys' fees. Such settlements, however, could not contain releases that would be binding on other shareholders of those companies because no court would have approved those settlements. While one law firm dominated in the initiation of the second wave of lawsuits, there are two other firms involved in initiating litigation or issuing press releases relating to this second wave. As a result, companies electing to settle such matters on an individual basis without court approval run the risk of settling with one law firm on behalf of one shareholder and then either having that same law firm represent a different shareholder in making a similar claim or having another law firm file suit for the same matters. In addition, companies electing to settle such matters on an individual basis may have a heightened risk of being targeted as easy marks by plaintiffs' law firms every time proxy season rolls around or in future potential securities litigation about other matters. In the long run, not settling but instead litigating and winning will be less expensive than a one-time cheap settlement because it will deter future litigation.

Third Wave Emerged in the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2012: Derivative Shareholder "Gotcha" Suits

It is laudable that companies fought plaintiffs on motions for preliminary injunctions in the second wave of cases. Due to those efforts, the plaintiffs' bar was beaten in 80% of motions for preliminary injunction. As a result, the plaintiffs' bar has turned to a new area of focus. In the past two quarters, 10 companies have been targeted by derivative shareholder litigation alleging that those companies awarded executive compensation in violation of stock plans and thus filed purportedly false and misleading proxy statements. These lawsuits are not linked to an upcoming annual meeting or say-on-pay vote. If the allegations are true, these suits stand a higher probability of success than the two prior litigation waves. As reflected in the Appendices, the favorite venue is the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in which six of these cases have been filed. It is too soon to tell how these suits will be resolved and if motions to dismiss on the grounds of failure to plead demand futility – a very successful tactic in defending any derivative litigation, and particularly successful in defeating 50% of the cases filed in the first wave – will be equally successful with these cases. It is also too soon to tell if plaintiffs' allegations based on reading the relevant plans and examining the awarded executive compensation are correct or based on erroneous analysis.

Role of Institutional Investors

In reviewing the cases filed in all three waves of shareholder litigation concerning executive compensation, we evaluated the role of institutional investors. Institutional investors have been plaintiffs in some cases, but have also supported defendant companies in others.

After the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") in 1995, plaintiffs' law firms courted institutional investors to serve as named plaintiffs in class actions to better position those plaintiffs and the law firms representing them to be appointed "lead plaintiff" and "lead plaintiffs' counsel" in those cases. The appointment as "lead plaintiffs' counsel" ensures that the chosen counsel directs and controls the litigation and captures a large portion of any attorneys' fees awarded at the conclusion of a successful case. Here is the breakdown of derivative and putative class action complaints filed by institutional investors in all three litigation waves:

First: 10 institutional investors (32% of all complaints)

Second: 1 institutional investor (5% of all complaints)

Third: 4 institutional investors (29% of all complaints)

No single institutional investor filed more than one complaint in the three waves. The lack of enthusiasm among institutional investors to be the plaintiff in the second wave of cases – the putative class actions seeking to enjoin annual meetings – may indicate one of two things. One possibility is that institutional investors looked askance at the allegations of those suits and did not want to be involved. The other possibility is that the dominant law firm involved in filing practically all of the second wave suits did not have relationships with institutional investors that fostered reaching out to those investors to serve as plaintiffs in lawsuits.

On the flip side, at least one institutional investor, a large California pension fund, has filed a declaration in support of a technology company's proxy statement disclosures in a second wave case. That declaration undoubtedly supplied powerful motivation for the plaintiff to then voluntarily dismiss the suit prior to a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion.

Should institutional investors view these suits as not adding value to shareholders by seeking additional disclosures in proxy statements that are not meaningful, they would be well advised to take a stand and support issuers on their disclosures. From an investor's perspective, litigation initiated by shareholders that costs companies money to resolve and defend and adds nothing of value to proxy statements are not in the best interests of shareholders. Hopefully, more institutional investors will consider actively supporting companies in these lawsuits.

Prevention and Exit Strategies

As we discussed in our earlier alert, the first wave of shareholder litigation is over although cases will continue to wind their way through congested court dockets for some time. No amount of additional disclosure in proxy statements will prevent companies from being sued in the second wave of these lawyer-driven actions. Rather, plaintiffs' counsel will poke holes and allege that additional disclosure is required no matter what is contained in the company's proxy statements. It goes without saying that strong disclosures will put companies in a better position to defeat these actions.

The third wave of litigation, however, is entirely preventable. If the allegations are true that companies issued stock options to executives in excess of limits authorized by the relevant plans, then those actions could have been prevented by complying with all limits established by the plans. As always, careful review of executive compensation actions by in-house and outside counsel and compensation consultants should ensure compliance with all governing plans.

Finally, we recently have seen the filing of a combined shareholder derivative and class action in a different court as a tag-along to a derivative lawsuit filed as part of the third litigation wave. Of course, it has been a fact of life for some time that securities litigation generally has involved multiple actions – lawsuits filed in state and federal courts and a putative class action being accompanied by a tag-along derivative suit. Where derivative litigation is filed, it often has involved a law firm representing a shareholder in making a direct demand on a company's board of directors to investigate the subject matter of litigation filed by a different plaintiffs' law firm. Of course, the point of all of this separate litigation is to have more plaintiffs' law firms attempting to profit by being a part of any global resolution of these actions. This latest tactic may be a harbinger of the kind of multiple litigation in different forums, coupled with potential shareholder demands, that is all too familiar in the securities litigation landscape.

Appendices
Download in Word Format

Footnote

1 Semler Brossy, 2012 Say-On-Pay Results (12/31/12), available at http://www.semlerbrossy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/SBCG-SOP-Year-End-Report.pdf

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Pepper Hamilton LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Pepper Hamilton LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions