In the News

Haynes and Boone in Law360: Chancery Tosses Claims Over $100M Sanchez Energy Deal

A Delaware Chancery judge on Tuesday threw out derivative claims that Sanchez Energy Corp. overpaid in an allegedly inside $100 million deal for oil and gas rights to the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale, ruling the suing shareholders didn’t make a pre-suit demand on the board nor show why they couldn’t. >>

Thad Behrens in Bloomberg BNA's Securities Regulation & Law Report: Justices Could Take Middle Ground Over §11 Liability for Opinion Statements

By all indications at oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court Nov. 3, issuers won't automatically be able to avoid liability under 1933 Securities Act Section 11 for stating their sincerely held opinions or beliefs in a registration statement if those statements ultimately are shown to be false (Omnicare Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund, U.S., No. 13-435, 11/03/14). >>

Recent Publications

Securities Litigation Year in Review 2014

Our annual Year in Review comments on significant securities-related decisions. >>

Delaware Court of Chancery Applies Board-Friendly Standard to Dismiss Claims Challenging Controlling Party Takeover

Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery recently applied the business judgment standard of review at the pleading stage to dismiss a complaint challenging a cash-out merger involving a controlling stockholder.   >>

Securities Liability for False Opinions - 10th Circuit Weighs in on Circuit Split

The standards for Section 11 liability for statements of opinion in registration statements is the subject of a split between the federal circuit courts. The Tenth Circuit joined the split in the recently issued opinion, MHC Mutual Conversion Fund v. Sandler O’Neill & Partners, et al. >>

Recognition for Our Litigation Practice

  • The BTI Consulting Group’s BTI Litigation Outlook 2013 recognized Haynes and Boone in three litigation areas: securities or finance related litigation, complex commercial litigation and IP litigation. The national survey of more than 350 senior in-house attorneys asked, “Which firm do you consider to be best suited to helping you” with various legal services.

Securities Class Action Defense and Shareholder Litigation

Our Securities Class Action Defense and Shareholder Litigation practice group represents a broad range of clients ranging from individual officers, directors and stockholders to corporations, partnerships, investment funds, institutional investors, stock brokers and accounting firms. We assist clients with all aspects of corporate and securities litigation including:

Our securities litigation lawyers work closely with our White Collar Criminal Defense Practice Group in connection with Securities Exchange Commission actions and with our Corporate/Securities Practice Group in connection with fiduciary duties, corporate governance, internal investigations and special board committee work. They work closely with our Insurance Coverage Litigation Practice Group in connection with director and officer indemnification and insurance coverage issues. Also, they work with lawyers in other practice areas as part of a coordinated, multidisciplinary ERISA and Other Benefits Litigation Practice Group to provide clients with comprehensive legal services regarding disputes involving ERISA, including actions brought under ERISA that mirror the factual allegations of parallel securities fraud class actions.

Our lawyers have significant experience in all areas of corporate and securities litigation, including class actions and derivative suits. We have extensive experience litigating against the most active plaintiff securities class action law firms in the nation, including Milberg, LLP and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP. We litigate before federal and state courts and self-regulatory bodies and handle investigations by, and enforcement proceedings before, federal and state regulatory agencies.

Added Value
Our lawyers devise creative and sensible strategies designed to further our clients’ corporate goals as well as their litigation objectives. We invest time learning the intricacies of our clients’ businesses to enhance the quality of our advice and to foster long-term relationships. We work with clients and their insurers to maximize coverage under all implicated policies. We also employ the firm’s top-ranked, state-of-the-art technology from the outset of every case to facilitate teamwork and eliminate duplicative efforts, to preserve and organize information, and to keep our clients well-informed.

Industry Experience
We serve as counsel for numerous publicly-held corporations as well as those whose stock is traded over-the-counter. Our clients come from a variety of industries including: wireless communications, fiber-optic transmissions, information technology, e-commerce, consumer finance, consumer loan securitizations, mortgage-backed assets, oil and gas, mining, chemicals, investment banking, underwriting, and broker-dealers.

Some of the significant decisions attorneys in this practice area have obtained include:

Dismissal/Summary Judgment Opinions in Securities Fraud Suits

  • Pedroli v. Bartek, 564 F. Supp.2d 683 (E.D. Tex. 2008)
  • Energytec, Inc. v. Proctor, 516 F.Supp.2d 660 (N.D. Tex. 2007)
  • Krim v., Inc., 402 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. March 1, 2005)
  • In re Alamosa Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 712001 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2005)
  • Krim v., Inc., 2003 WL 21076787 (W.D. Tex. May 5, 2003)
  • Berger v. Beletic, 248 F. Supp. 2d 597 (N.D. Tex. 2003)
  • In re Capstead Mortgage Corp. Sec. Litig., 258 F. Supp. 2d 533 (N.D. Tex. 2003)
  • Sherman v. Triton Energy Corp., 124 S.W.3d 272 (Tex. App. - Dallas, 2003)
  • Alcina v., Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 732 (W.D. Tex 2002)

Dismissal/Summary Judgment Opinions in Shareholder Derivative Suits

  • In re Schmitz [Lancer Corporation], 285 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. May 22, 2009)
  • King v. Bartlett [Flowserve Corporation], No. 600991/2007 (S.Ct. N.Y. Co., Jan. 2, 2008)
  • King v. Bartlett [Flowserve Corporation], 3:06-CV-0453 (N.D. Tex., Mar. 14, 2007)

Denials of Class Certification

  • Umsted v. Intelect, Inc., 2003 WL 79750 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2003)
  • Kase v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16659 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2003)
  • Krim v., Inc., 210 F.R.D. 581 (W.D. Tex. 2002)