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

Bad behavior in the workplace is in many instances a legal wrong that leads to legal consequences. Sexual harassment, for example, leads to consequences under tort and employment law. But if the perpetrator is a director or officer of a Delaware corporation, does such bad behavior give rise to a claim by the corporation for breach of fiduciary duty against the miscreant fiduciary? The answer for now is “not always.” In Brola v. Lundgren, C.A. 2024-1108-LWW, 2025 WL 3439671 (Del. Ch. Dec. 1, 2025) (Will, V.C.), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that sexual harassment by a director or officer does not necessarily give rise to a corporate claim for breach of the duty of loyalty, even though the corporation may have suffered losses as a result of the fiduciary’s misconduct.

Continue Reading Delaware Court of Chancery Holds that a Fiduciary’s Alleged Harassment Resulting in Corporate Loss Does Not Necessarily Equate to a Breach of Fiduciary Duty

In SEC v. Sripetch, No. 24-3830, 2025 WL 2525848 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a $2.25 million disgorgement award obtained by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in an enforcement action, rejecting the argument that the SEC must prove pecuniary harm to investors before obtaining disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7). This decision deepens a split between Circuits that require a showing of pecuniary harm to investors in this context, and those that do not. As it stands now, the First, Fifth and Ninth Circuits have generally agreed that the SEC does not need to show individual investor harm impose disgorgement, whereas the Second Circuit holds the opposite. This split on a critical issue of SEC enforcement raises the specter of review by the United States Supreme Court.

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Clarifies SEC Disgorgement Standard, Aligning with the First and Fifth Circuits and Disagreeing with the Second Circuit

In Sneed v. Talphera, Inc., 2025 WL 2406424 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a securities fraud suit against Talphera, Inc. (formerly AcelRx Pharmaceuticals; the “Company”) and two top executives, holding that a company slogan used in investor presentations — “Tongue and Done” — was not misleading to reasonable investors, especially in light of accompanying disclosures. This opinion clarifies the interplay between marketing materials, context and the reasonable investor standard for reliance and materiality in claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit: Marketing Slogan Alone Not Actionable Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5

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

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