Courts and ADR

Subscribe to Courts and ADR via RSS

Following up on our recent post analyzing Texas’s new proxy advisor disclosure statute, S.B. 2337, we note a significant development: On August 29, 2025, Judge Alan Albright of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction temporarily preventing the Texas Attorney General from enforcing the law against major proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Co. (Glass Lewis).Continue Reading Federal Court Blocks Enforcement of Texas Proxy Advisor Disclosure Law

In EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court, Case No. S282521, 2025 WL 2027272 (Cal. July 21, 2025), the California Supreme Court held that forum selection clauses may be enforced against California plaintiffs even when the selected forum — such as the oft-selected Delaware Court of Chancery — would not afford plaintiffs a right to a civil jury trial they would otherwise have had in a California court. This decision effectively overrules Handoush v. Lease Financing Group, LLC, 41 Cal.App.5th 729 (2019), in which the California Court of Appeal (First District) restricted courts from enforcing such clauses where the plaintiff would not be entitled to a jury trial in the selected forum. The Supreme Court’s decision thus clarifies the law in California, providing practitioners and litigants with greater certainty that forum selection clauses will be enforced.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Holds That Lack of Jury Trial Right Is Insufficient to Reject Enforcement of Forum Selection Clause

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently held that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the securities industry were effectively “separated by a common language.” Giving heed to the plain meaning rule when interpreting legislative intent, the Court in Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. v. SEC, No. 24-5105, —F.4th —, 2025 WL 1802786 (D.C. Cir. July 1, 2025), affirmed an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (see Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. v. SEC, 718 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2024)), granting summary judgment to plaintiff Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (“ISS”), holding that the SEC’s definition of the term “solicit” went beyond the meaning Congress contemplated when enacting Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The decision analyzed the SEC’s 2020 amendment to its rules regulating proxy advice to define the term “solicit” / “solicitation” to include the provision of client requested proxy voting advice (“2020 Rule”). The Court struck down the 2020 Rule as unlawful, reasoning that the meaning of “solicit” as Congress intended when it enacted the Exchange Act is to actively seek to obtain proxy authority or votes. The Court concluded that “the ordinary meaning of ‘solicit’ does not include entities that provide proxy voting recommendations requested by others, even if those recommendations influence the requestors’ eventual votes.” Proxy advisory firms like ISS were therefore in the clear when it comes to Section 14(a).Continue Reading Plain Speaking Wins the Day at the D.C. Circuit: Proxy Advisors Are Not Subject to SEC Section 14(a) Solicitation Prohibition Rule

In Norman v. Strateman, No. A170356, 2025 WL 1802786 (Cal. App., 1st Dist., June 20, 2025), the California Court of Appeal held that a settlement of derivative claims reached among all shareholders of a close corporation was not enforceable because the settlement was not vetted by the trial court through a formal settlement approval process. This ruling confirms that the procedural requirements for derivative litigation must followed even for closely held companies where all shareholders are also individual parties to the litigation.Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Holds That Derivative Litigation Settlement Procedural Rules Apply Even In Intra-Shareholder Suits in Closely Held Companies

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

Cross-border M&A deals frequently present unique issues and strategic closing considerations for transaction parties to navigate—including national security approvals. In a recent Delaware Chancery Court decision, these issues intersected when the court was forced to weigh national security-related approval conditions imposed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) against the buyer’s stringent contractual closing obligations.Continue Reading Closing Time: Hell, High Water, and Insights from the Delaware Chancery Court Decision in Desktop Metal v. Nano Dimension

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

As previously reported (here and here), some Delaware courts have recently declined to “blue pencil,” i.e., modify and narrow overbroad restrictive covenants. Instead, they have stricken in their entirety covenants deemed overbroad and declined to enforce them. On December 10, 2024, in Sunder Energy, LLC v. Tyler Jackson, et al., the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that Delaware courts have the discretion to decline to blue pencil overbroad restrictive covenants, even if the defendant’s conduct would violate a more narrowly circumscribed covenant. Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court Declines to Enforce Noncompete Against Company Founder Who Joined Competitor

On December 3, 2024, a Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Texas in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland placed a nationwide injunction on the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”), a law regulating business entities that became effective on January 1, 2024. Pursuant to the ruling, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) released a statement confirming that reporting companies are not required to comply with the CTA while the preliminary injunction remains in effect.Continue Reading Texas Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction on CTA Nationwide; Department of Justice Appeals

In Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC, — Cal. App. 5th —, 2024 WL 3878448 (Cal. App. Aug. 20, 2024), the California Court of Appeal answered two long outstanding questions of California law concerning the enforceability of noncompetition agreements in the context of the sale of a business:Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Rules That Partial Sale of Business Can Bind Seller-Owner to a Noncompetition Agreement