Photo of John Stigi

John Stigi

Subscribe to John Stigi's Posts

John Stigi is a partner in the Business Trial Practice Group and Co-Leader of the firm's Securities Enforcement and Litigation Team.

Contact:Read more about John Stigi

In Ezrasons, Inc. v. Rudd, 2025 NY Slip Op. 03008, 2025 N.Y. LEXIS 717 (N.Y. May 20, 2025), the New York Court of Appeals reaffirmed the fundamental and controlling nature of the internal affairs doctrine as it relates to the choice of law regarding corporate governance disputes. Specifically, the Court held that in enacting Sections 626(a) and 1319(a)(2) of New York’s Business Corporation Law (“BCL”), the New York legislature did not clearly manifest an intent to displace the long-settled doctrine as it applies to shareholder derivative standing with respect to corporations formed under the laws of another jurisdiction. This decision provides further assurance to foreign corporations that New York courts will enforce the substantive law of the place of incorporation for litigation involving the corporation’s internal affairs.Continue Reading New York Court of Appeals Reaffirms the Internal Affairs Doctrine for Foreign Corporations

In Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., No. 22-15815, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9410 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the Canada-based company Shopify, Inc. (“Shopify”), which provides a web-based payment processing platform to online merchants across the United States (and the world), is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California based solely upon Shopify’s extraction, maintenance and commercial distribution of personal data from consumers it knew to be located in California. In making this ruling, the Ninth Circuit became the first Circuit in the nation to address this type of personal jurisdiction question involving a global online payment platform.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit En Banc Reverses Panel Decision and Holds Non-Resident Corporation Providing Web-Based Payment Processing Platform Is Subject to Specific Personal Jurisdiction in California

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently joined a growing consensus among federal appellate courts: short-seller reports, without more, rarely suffice to plead loss causation under the federal securities laws. In Defeo v. IonQ, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8216, ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. Apr. 8, 2025), the Court held that a report by activist short-seller Scorpion Capital — which coincided with a significant stock price drop — did not constitute a corrective disclosure revealing previously concealed fraud to the market. The opinion aligns the Fourth Circuit with decisions from the Ninth Circuit, which have similarly found that loss causation cannot rest on short-seller publications that are speculative, anonymously sourced and heavily disclaimed.Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Rejects the Use of Short-Seller Report as a Basis for Satisfying Loss Causation Element in Securities Fraud Action

On March 25, 2025, the governor of Delaware signed into law Senate Bill 21, over much opposition from the plaintiffs’ bar and some academics. The bill, which amends Sections 144 and Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del. C. (the “DGCL”), seeks to provide clarity for transactional planners in conflicted and controller transactions, and seeks to limit the reach of Section 220 books and records demands. These amendments significantly alter the controller transaction and books and records landscape.Continue Reading Delaware Enacts Sweeping Changes to the Delaware General Corporation Law

In Maffei v. Palkon, No. 125, 2024, 2025 Del. LEXIS 51 (Del. Feb. 4, 2025) (Valihura, J.), the Delaware Supreme Court held that a corporation’s decision to reincorporate in another state purportedly to reduce exposure to potential future litigation risk is subject to the deferential business judgment rule, as long as the decision is not alleged to have been made to avoid any existing or threatened litigation or in contemplation of a specific transaction. Reversing the decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery [see blog article here], the Supreme Court concluded that reduced exposure to potential liabilities that a controlling stockholder may face in the future is not a material, non-ratable benefit triggering the exacting entire fairness standard of review. Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court Holds Business Judgment Governs Decision to Reincorporate Outside of Delaware For Purpose of Reducing Litigation Exposure In the Absence of Existing or Threatened Litigation

In Max Royal LLC v. Atieva, Inc., No. 23-16049, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19910 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a securities class action brought by investors who purchased shares of the special purpose acquisition company Churchill Capital Corporation IV (“CCIV”) in early 2021 before it merged with Atieva, Inc. d/b/a Lucid Motors (“Lucid”) in July 2021. The three-judge panel held that purchasers of a security of an acquiring company do not have standing under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), to sue the target company for alleged misstatements by the target company made prior to the merger between the two companies. The Court’s decision provides protection to target company executives speaking to the press about their company’s forecasts and capabilities prior to acquisition by tightening the standing requirements for pre-acquisition SPAC investor plaintiffs.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Applies Birnbaum Rule to Affirm Dismissal of Claims by SPAC Investors Asserted Against Target Company Executives for Pre-Merger Statements

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859, 2024 WL 3187811 (U.S. June 27, 2024), the United Stated Supreme Court (Roberts, C.J.) held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles the defendant to a trial by jury. This decision was based upon the Court’s interpretation that the SEC’s antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud, and thus actions for violations of these provisions implicate the Seventh Amendment right. The Court determined that the “public rights” exception, which allows certain matters to be resolved outside of Article III courts without a jury, does not apply in this context because the action does not fall within the distinctive areas involving governmental prerogatives traditionally resolved without Article III adjudication. This ruling curtails the SEC’s authority to impose penalties for fraud, and could potentially affect the enforcement capabilities of agencies enforcing federal law.Continue Reading Supreme Court Limits SEC’s Enforcement Power to Penalize Fraud

In Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, No. 22-1165, 2024 WL 1588706 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024) (“MIC”), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held unanimously that “pure omissions” in a Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filing do not support liability under SEC Rule 10b-5(b). The Court ruled that the failure to make a required disclosure can give rise to a Rule 10b-5(b) claim only if the non-disclosure renders affirmative “statements made” misleading. Put differently, if a company elects to speak, it must tell the whole truth (or at least “information necessary to ensure that the [affirmative] statements made are clear and complete”); but a company’s silence on an issue is not securities fraud under Rule 10b-5(b), even if the company is otherwise duty-bound to disclose.Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds “Pure Omissions” Are Not Actionable Under Rule 10b-5(b)

In Ap-Fonden v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., C.A. No. 2022-1001-KSJM, 2024 WL 863290 (Del. Ch. Feb. 29, 2024), the Delaware Court of Chancery (McCormick, C.) declined to dismiss a claim alleging that the Board of Directors of defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”) violated Section 251(b) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”) by approving a draft merger agreement between Activision and Microsoft, Inc. (“Microsoft”) that was not sufficiently final. The Court held that to comply with Section 251(b), the version of a merger agreement the board must consider and approve need not be “execution ready” but must be “essentially complete.” Practitioners should pay close attention to the Court’s holdings here as it may vary from what some consider customary market practice.Continue Reading Delaware Court of Chancery Puts Practitioners on Notice Regarding Voting Formalities Around Merger Agreements

In Palkon v. Maffei, C.A. No. 2023-0449-JTL, 2024 Del. Ch. LEXIS 48 (Del. Ch. Feb. 20, 2024) (Laster, V.C.) the Delaware Court of Chancery considered whether a controlling stockholder’s approval of transactions reincorporating two Delaware corporations in Nevada is subject to entire fairness review where there was a lack of procedural protections that would give the approval of the transactions the patina of arms-length bargaining. Because the stockholders’ derivative complaint contained allegations that (if true) established that the disputed transactions adversely affected investor protections, the Court of Chancery applied the inherently-factual “entire fairness” standard of review and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.Continue Reading Delaware Corporations Must Employ Procedural Safeguards When Approving a Reincorporation that Could Benefit a Controlling Stockholder to Avoid Entire Fairness Standard of Review

In Segway Inc. v. Hong Cai, 2023 Del. Ch. LEXIS 643 (Del. Ch. Dec. 14, 2023), the Delaware Court of Chancery (Will, V.C.) dismissed a claim for breach of fiduciary duty brought by Segway Inc. (the “Company”) against its former President and Vice President of Finance (the “Officer”). The Company framed its claim as a claim for breach of the duty of oversight, commonly known as a Caremark claim (from the landmark case In re Caremark Int’l Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996)). Continue Reading The Delaware Court of Chancery Confirms that Duty of Oversight Claims Against Corporate Officers Are Subject to the Same High Pleading Standards Applicable to Duty of Oversight Claims Against Corporate Directors