Edgar A. Neely IV
Scott N. Sherman

The arrival of a securities class action lawsuit can be and often is a watershed moment in the life a public company. In the following guest post, Edgar A. Neely IV and Scott N. Sherman provide a basic briefing for directors concerned about securities litigation. Edgar and Scott are both partners at the Nelson Mullins law firm. I would like to thank Edgar and Scott for allowing me to publish their article on this site. Here is the authors’ article.

******************************

As we kick off the new year, the risk of shareholder litigation remains a significant reality for public companies and their boards.  For example, a Cornerstone Research report in September 2025 showed that merger and acquisition-related litigation in Delaware has increased based both on volume and average settlement value.  (See the Cornerstone press release here). Recent years have also seen an increase in the value of derivative settlements, with at least 12 derivative settlements over $100M since 2020.  This trend serves as a stark reminder that shareholder litigation can present financial exposure not just for a company but also personally for its directors.

Understanding important concepts about shareholder litigation can help companies and their directors mitigate risk and assess potential strategies.  With that in mind, the five key considerations below provide important and actionable context for directors to know when it comes to shareholder litigation, from protections like insurance and exculpation to considerations on strategy and risk mitigation.   

  1. It’s important to assess and understand D&O insurance and other protections

Directors and officers (“D&O”) insurance is critically important to protect board members from personal financial exposure in shareholder litigation.  Board members should thus understand D&O insurance and engage with management in selecting an appropriate policy. 

A primary consideration is the appropriate amount of coverage, which requires assessing the circumstances and risk profile of the company.  It’s also important to understand the different “sides” of D&O insurance and how much coverage is available for “Side A.”  At a high level, D&O insurance in typically broken into three sides: “Side A” covers individual directors and officers, “Side B” provides reimbursement to the company after it indemnifies individual directors and officers, and “Side C” covers the company for its securities litigation risk.  Assessing the coverage amount for Side A, whether there is “difference in conditions” (DIC) coverage, and the terms of any conduct exclusions are each critical in the policy selection process. 

The company can also offer protections through its articles of incorporation and bylaws.  A company’s articles of incorporation can exculpate directors from personal liability for duty of care claims.  Its articles of incorporation and bylaws can also include provisions for indemnification and fee advancement for directors and officers.  But, importantly, the extent of these protections is often limited by state law to exclude circumstances like bad faith or intentional misconduct. 

It’s important for the board to understand these protections on the front end and, should litigation arise, consult with counsel to review and secure the available rights and protections from personal exposure. 

2. State of incorporation matters

The decision of where to incorporate (or reincorporate) and developments in the “DExit” movement continue to be hot topics in corporate governance, as discussed in our firm’s Corporate Governance Insights series (including installments in March, June, and July, and November 2025).

The laws of a company’s state of incorporation generally govern matters concerning the relationship between the company, its directors, and its shareholders.  As a result, key issues directly related to shareholder litigation can be meaningfully different depending on the state of incorporation. 

For example, shareholders often make a books and records request (called a “Section 220 demand” in Delaware) to gather information from the company before pursuing legal action.  State law on the requirements for shareholders to obtain the information and the scope of information they may be entitled to varies from state-to-state, directly impacting the company’s options in assessing a response to the request.  Similarly, how a shareholder may bring a derivative action differs depending on the laws of the state of incorporation.  And beyond procedural issues, substantive legal rules can vary among states. 

Retaining knowledgeable counsel on the applicable state’s rules and standards is vital to understanding the key issues and assessing available strategies related to shareholder claims.      

3. The type of shareholder action matters

Two common types of shareholder actions are (1) securities class actions, and (2) derivative actions. Securities class actions are brought by shareholders to recover for their alleged losses. These actions typically involve claims against the company itself and its chief executives under federal securities laws—often based on certain public statements alleged to be fraudulent. By contrast, derivative actions are brought by the shareholder “on behalf of the company” against the company’s officers or directors for alleged harm suffered by the company.  They typically involve claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste against the company’s officers and directors. 

Each type of action has its own unique considerations.  For example, because derivative actions are brought by shareholders on behalf of the company, they may be subject to dismissal if the shareholder fails to meet certain base-line requirements to proceed on the company’s behalf.  Derivative actions can also be dismissed if an independent board or special committee determines the action is not in the best interests of the company based on a reasonable and good faith investigation.  This process requires several key considerations, including each board member’s independence, whether it’s necessary to form a committee for the investigation, the scope of the committee’s decision-making authority, and obtaining independent counsel for the committee.  For additional detail on derivative investigations and the role of related committees, see our firm’s publication here

Securities class actions also involve distinct issues and strategy points.  The company may seek early dismissal based on the stringent requirements a shareholder must meet to properly allege federal securities fraud.  Defeating class certification presents another critical point in the case and requires detailed analysis of the class allegations and key legal arguments.  Key issues in the analysis include the shareholder’s standing (i.e., ability to represent and bring the alleged class claims) and challenging the “fraud-on-the-market” theory (i.e., that the alleged misrepresentations inflated the company’s stock price).     

Overall, both types of actions present complex legal and procedural issues, making it crucial to engage legal counsel early on to assess and develop an appropriate response.  And as noted above, early consultation with counsel is also important to understand and secure the available rights and protections against personal exposure, such as D&O coverage.

4. Parallel shareholder actions are common and require careful assessment

Securities class actions often involve an accompanying (or parallel) derivative action based on similar or related allegations.  According to Cornerstone Research, nearly half (47%) of the securities class action settlements between 2019 to 2024 involved parallel derivative actions.  (The Cornerstone Research report can be found here.) 

Because decisions and activity in one action can impact the other, it’s important to avoid handling parallel actions in a vacuum.  For example, derivative actions often seek indemnification for the amounts paid by the company in the parallel securities action. Liability for that claim will thus hinge on the outcome of the securities action.  Dismissal of the securities action may also weaken or remove the basis for a parallel derivative action brought on the same allegations.  And if both actions proceed simultaneously, the company is put in the awkward position of defending the allegations against it in the securities action while the derivative plaintiff (on behalf of the company) is actively seeking to prove similar allegations.

For these and other reasons, it often makes sense to stay the derivative action until the related securities action is resolved or until key developments occur, such as a ruling on a motion to dismiss.  Staying parallel derivative actions can serve to avoid inefficiencies, conflicting rulings, and potential prejudice to the company and its litigation interests.  But whether and to what extent a stay is appropriate will depend on the facts and circumstances.

Effectively managing parallel actions therefore requires careful assessment and coordination with legal counsel.

5. Staying informed and documenting board considerations is key

There are several ways directors can mitigate the risk of shareholder litigation.  Among them, a board’s ability to stay informed and document its decision-making process has proven to be crucial.  These practices are important not only for reducing litigation risk overall through board engagement and oversight, but also for limiting personal financial exposure for directors.  

For example, most jurisdictions recognize the business judgment rule, which generally protects directors and officers from liability for decisions made on an informed and good faith basis, and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company.  Taking measures to ensure the board is adequately informed thus provides a strong foundation for the protections of the business judgment rule. 

Recent court decisions have also shown the importance of documenting the board’s receipt and consideration of important information.  This is particularly true with respect to “mission-critical” and compliance-related issues for companies.  A written, non-privileged record of the board’s discussion of such key issues (often via board or committee minutes) can provide a powerful defense to fiduciary duty claims against the board.   

As the securities litigation and corporate governance landscape continues to evolve, it’s important for boards to consult with legal counsel on strategies for risk mitigation.  

These materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and are not legal advice.  This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.  Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Edgar A. Neely IV is a partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, where he focuses his practice on securities litigation and complex business disputes. He represents companies, their directors and officers, and special litigation committees in securities and shareholder litigation matters. Edgar also represents companies and individuals in investigations and proceedings brought by the SEC and other government and regulatory agencies. He may be reached at edgar.neely@nelsonmullins.com.

Scott N. Sherman is a partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, where he practices in complex business litigation and securities litigation and serves as co-chair of the firm’s Securities and Corporate Governance Litigation Group. He represents public companies, directors, and officers in securities class actions and derivative lawsuits and represents special litigation committees as well as companies and individuals involved in SEC and FINA enforcement proceedings. He may be reached at scott.sherman@nelsonmullins.com.

Please subscribe to our Corporate Governance Insights Blog:

Sarah Abrams

In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, takes a look at the D&O risks that can arise from crypto-adjacent firms’ use “liquidity pools,” in view of the D&O claims involving the bankrupt digital token firm, SafeMoon. My thanks to Sarah for allowing me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. Here is Sarah’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Liquidity Pool Fraud and D&O Risk

It is no secret that the SEC under the Trump Administration is taking a very different approach to cryptocurrency than the agency did under the Biden Administration. Indeed, a detailed December 2025 New York Times article (here) made it clear – if there were any doubt — that the administration’s more restrained approach to crypto starts at the very top. But what does the more restrained crypto approach mean in practical terms? A January 22, 2026, report from Cornerstone Research, which can be found here, spells out in detail what it means, both in terms of reduced numbers of crypto-related enforcement actions and in diminished crypto-related recoveries.

Continue Reading SEC: Less Crypto Enforcement, Lower Crypto Recoveries
Sarah Abrams

The current private credit market turmoil has involved a number of high-profile company failures and ensuing D&O claims. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams takes a closer look at one recent example of these developments — the bankruptcy of Tricolor Holdings and the ensuing criminal indictment — and considers the broader potential D&O liability and insurance implications. My thanks to Sarah for allowing me to publish her article on this site. Here is Sarah’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: The Collision of Asset-Based Lending and Governance Failures

Questions whether two sets of circumstances are or are not interrelated are among the most vexing insurance coverage disputes out there. These questions often are even more fraught because of the significant amounts of money that can depend on the answer. All of these considerations were in play in a recent Fourth Circuit decision in which the appellate court concluded in the Under Armour case that because prior shareholder litigation and a later SEC investigation were “logically and causally” related, they represented a single claim triggering only one $100 million insurance tower, rather than a second $100 million tower, as the company had argued. The Court’s January 20, 2026, decision, which highlights the many concerns and considerations that can come into play in these kinds of disputes, can be found here.

Continue Reading 4th Circuit: Shareholder Claims and SEC Investigation “Logically and Causally” Related
Arlene Levitin

As readers of this blog know well, cybersecurity issues can be an important potential source of directors’ and officers’ liability risk exposure. In the following guest post, Arlene Levitin, Esq., takes a detailed look at the many ways that cybersecurity-related issues can translate into D&O liability risk and insurance concerns, particularly with advent of artificicial intelligence technology. Arelene is Claims Officer, Complex Management Liability, NAS Financial Lines Claims, Liberty Mutual Insurance. I would like to thank Arlene for allowing me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. Here is Arlene’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Cybersecurity Risks & the Potential Impact on D&O Insurance

According to the latest report from ISS Securities Class Action Services, there were two court-approved securities class action lawsuit settlements in 2025 large enough to make the firm’s annual list of the Top 100 U.S. Class Action Settlements. These two 2025 settlements took place in a year in which the number of cases resolved, average and median settlement amounts, and even the number and total value of “mega settlements” ($100 million+) all declined compared to 2024. The details of the 2025 court approved settlements, including with respect to the two largest of the year, can be found in the ISS SCAS report, here.

Continue Reading ISS Releases Top 100 Securities Suit Settlements List

After three straight years of increases in the number of federal court securities class action lawsuit filings, the number of federal court securities suits decreased in 2025 relative to 2024, to the lowest level since 2021, according to the latest annual report from NERA Economic Research Associates. In addition, the annual number of dismissals increased in 2025, the number of settlements decreased, but the median securities suit settlement was at a ten-year high. The NERA report, which is entitled “Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2025 Full-Year Review,” can be found here.

According to the NERA Report, there were 207 new federal court class action lawsuit filings in 2025, compared to 232 in 2024, representing a decline of 11%. Before breaking these numbers down further, a word about NERA’s counting methodology is appropriate. Like other publicly available securities suit tracking sources, NERA counts two (or more) lawsuits filed in the same circuit based on the same defendant and the same allegations as only one lawsuit filing. However, and by contrast to other sources, NERA counts two lawsuits with the same allegations and filed in different circuits twice  — if the two are later consolidated, NERA adjusts its count. This methodological approach may cause NERA’s numbers to differ slightly from other publicly available sources – though it should be noted that the various sources are generally directionally consistent. One final note about the NERA count – it is limited to federal court securities suit filings only; it does not include state court securities class action lawsuit filings.

The 207 federal court securities suits filed in 2025 is the lowest annual number of filings since 2022, when there were 204 filings. As of November 2025, there were 5,497 companies listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq, meaning that about 3.8% of companies listed on the U.S. exchanges were subject to securities class action suits in 2025.

Several factors affected the number of securities suit filings in 2025. Among the contributing factors was the number of artificial intelligence (AI)-related securities suit filings. According to NERA, there were 17 AI-related filings in 2025, representing 8% of all federal court securities suit filings, slightly more than the 16 AI-related filings in 2024. There were also 14 crypto-related filings, representing an increase of 75% over the 8 crypto-related case filings in 2024.

While the AI suits and crypto cases contributed to the 2025 total number of filings, declines in 2025 compared to 2024 in certain other long-term filing trends contributed to the overall drop in the number of 2025 filings. Thus, for example, there were, according to NERA, only five SPAC-related filings in 2025, representing an 86% decrease from the 36 SPAC-related suits in 2024. Similarly, there were only three COVID-related suits filed in 2025, compared to 19 COVID-related suit filings in 2024. Indeed, the decline in filings during 2025 just with respect to these two long-term filings trends alone more than account for the decline in the total number of 2025 filings compared to the number of 2024 filings.

The number of federal court securities suits filed against non-U.S. companies also declined in 2025 compared to 2024. In 2025, there were 25 securities suits filed against non-U.S. companies, compared to 36 securities suits filed against non-U.S. companies in 2024, representing a decline of about 30%. The 25 securities suits filed against non-U.S. companies in 2025 is the lowest annual number since at least 2016.

The NERA report has some interesting analysis about the declining number of suits against foreign companies. Figure 6 on page 7 of the report shows that for the years 2016 through 2021, the percentage of all federal court securities suits filed against foreign companies was greater that the percentage of non-U.S. companies among all companies listed on the U.S. exchanges (in other words, non-U.S. companies were getting sued at a greater rate than their presence on the stock exchanges would otherwise suggest.) However, as the chart also shows, in 2021, the lines crossed (literally) and each year since, the percentage of all securities suits against non-U.S. companies has been less than the percentage of foreign companies on the U.S. exchanges, meaning that non-U.S. companies are getting sued at a lower rate than their presence on the U.S. exchanges might otherwise suggest.

An important detail to consider in analyzing these changes in securities suit frequency against non-U.S. companies is that the listings of non-U.S. companies as a percentage of all U.S.-listed companies has been increasingly steadily since 2016. Thus, in 2016, non-U.S. companies represented only 17.4% of all U.S.-listed companies, whereas in 2025, non-U.S. companies represented 28.8% of all U.S.-listed companies. Since 2020, the percentage of all securities suit filings represented by suits against non-U.S. companies has declined. I have my suspicions about what is going on here (I think it may have something do with an increase in the number of publicly traded finance vehicles registered in Grand Caymans and other offshore sites), but the trend lines and numbers are creating some very interesting dynamics, for sure.

The NERA report also shows that the number of case resolutions overall increased in 2025 relative to 2024, but the numbers of case dismissals and case settlements moved in opposite directions. Thus, while the number of case dismissals increased in 2025 to 155 from 116 in 2024, representing an increase of 34%, the number of settlements declined to 79 in 2025 from the 94 in 2024, representing a decrease of 16%. The number of standard or traditional case settlements in 2025 (72) was the lowest number since 2020.

The report has an interesting analysis of the outcomes of cases in which motions to dismiss are filed. As reflected in Figure 15 on page 18 of the report, during the period January 2016 through December 2025, motions to dismiss were filed in 96% of all cases. Of these cases in which motions to dismiss were filed, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed 21% of case – I just want to make sure everyone registers this: plaintiffs’ lawyers voluntarily dismiss one out of every five cases in which motions to dismiss are filed, a statistic I find nothing short of astonishing.

The report’s motions to dismiss analysis shows further that of the cases in which motions are pending but that are not resolved before the court rules on the motions (representing 73% of the cases in which motions to dismiss are filed), the motions are granted 62% of the time (55% with prejudice, 7% without prejudice), while the motions are denied either in full or in part 38% of the time. These figures certainly underscore why the dismissal motion stage is such a critical stage in securities class action lawsuits. The volume of cases that are either voluntarily dismissed before the dismissal motion ruling, or that are dismissed after the ruling, represents a huge percentage of the overall volume of securities suits filed.

Not only did the number of securities suits settled decline in 2025, but the aggregate value of the settlements also declined. The aggregate value of settlements in 2025 was $2.9 billion, as compared to the inflation-adjusted $3.9 billion in 2024, representing a 25% decline, and a 33% decline from the inflation-adjusted 2022 total of $4.4 billion.

There were no 2025 settlements of $1 billion or greater; the two largest 2025 settlements were Alibaba Group Holdings ($433.5 million) and General Electric Company ($362 million). The ten largest 2025 settlements ranged from $80 million to $433.5 million and together accounted for $1.7 billion, or 59%, of the $2.9 billion 2025 aggregate securities settlements amount.

The amount of the average securities suit settlement in 2025 was $40 million, representing a 9% decline from the 2024 inflation-adjusted average of $44 million, but also representing a 63% increase from the inflation-adjusted 2021 average settlement of $24 million.

The median 2025 securities suit settlement value was $17.3 million, representing a 21% increase relative to the inflation-adjusted $14.3 million median settlement in 2024, and also the largest annual median settlement value during the 2016-2025 period.

In 2025, aggregate plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded totaled $797 million, compared to $1.063 billion in 2024, representing a 25% decline. Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses represented about 27.1% of the $2.9 billion in aggregate settlements in 2025.

The NERA report has much more detail than I have summarized or commented on here. The report is worth reading at length and in full.

Sarah Abrams

In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, examines the question whether the SEC should adopt AI-specific disclosure guidelines with reference to two recent enforcement actions involving tech companies allegedly fraudulent claims about their technology. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her article on this site. Here is Sarah’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Would Specific SEC Disclosure Guidelines Deter AI-Washing?

Delaware courts recently have wrestled with the question whether and when underlying allegations of sexual harassment can support a breach of fiduciary duty claim against corporate boards. Indeed, late last year, in the Credit Glory case, at least one Delaware Chancery Court decision rejected the viability of this type of claim. Now, in the latest case addressing these questions, and involving shocking underlying allegations of drugging, sexual assault, and rape at company events, a Delaware Chancery Court sustained a breach of the duty of oversight claim against directors alleged to have covered up the underlying allegations and retaliated against a whistleblower. The court’s detailed opinion is written in obvious anticipation of Supreme Court review. The January 16, 2026, opinion in the eXp World Holdings case can be found here.

Continue Reading Del. Court: Board Failed to Respond to Sexual Misconduct “Red Flags”