As outlined in our prior update, on December 3, 2024, a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its implementing regulations from taking effect nationwide. 

Continue Reading DOJ Appeals CTA Injunction; FinCEN Suspends Filing Requirement

We want to make you aware that yesterday, a Texas federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the effectiveness of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its implementing regulations, which require certain companies (including certain non-U.S. companies registered to conduct business in the United States) to disclose beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Continue Reading Federal District Court Enjoins Enforcement of U.S. Corporate Transparency Act

The United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) hosted the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (“COP28”). Experts described COP28 as “the most important COP since the Paris Agreement,”[1] partly due to its location in one of the world’s ten largest oil producing countries.[2] With over 95,000 delegates, COP28 was the largest COP conference to date.[3]

Continue Reading Green Bonds and Global Pledges: Unpacking COP28’s Impact

On July 30, 2024, the Ministry of Economy (the “Ministry”) of the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) issued Ministerial Decision No. 137 of 2024 concerning the operation of the registrar of private joint stock companies (“PrJSCs”) and regulations and governance applicable to such companies (the “Decision”).[1]

Continue Reading The UAE Government Clarifies Rules Applicable to Private Joint Stock Companies

Earnout provisions in acquisition agreements can be a useful tool in bridging the valuation gap by deferring portions of the purchase price until certain post-closing milestones are achieved, and they are particularly common in developmental-stage pharmaceutical transactions.  Practitioners should take note of the September 5, 2024 opinion in Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in which the Delaware Court of Chancery held a buyer, Alexion, liable for breach of contract both for its failure to use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve milestones for which future earnout payments may have become due and for its failure to pay an earned milestone payment to selling securityholders of Syntimmune, Inc.[1]

Continue Reading Delaware Court of Chancery Finds Buyer Failed to Use Commercially Reasonable Efforts in Pharma Milestone Payment Case

On August 14, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the “District Court”) issued a decision ordering a permanent injunction against rules promulgated by the Missouri Securities Division, colloquially referred to as Missouri’s “Anti-ESG” Rules, requiring that broker dealers and investment advisers disclose to and obtain written consent from customers if their investment decisions or advice “incorporate[] a social objective or other nonfinancial objective” (the “Rules”).  The District Court held the Rules were preempted by both the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (“NSMIA”) and the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  The District Court also held the Rules violated the First Amendment’s protection against compelled speech and were unconstitutionally vague.  The decision highlights the limits of U.S. state power in policing the social objectives broker dealers and investment advisers incorporate into their practice and, if not overturned on appeal, suggests that broker dealers and investment advisers may face less legislative pushback, at least at the state level, in pursuing environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) objectives in the future.

Continue Reading District Court Holds Missouri’s “Anti-ESG” Rules are Preempted by Federal Law, Violate First Amendment, and are Unconstitutionally Vague[1]

In a May 31, 2024 opinion, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss a complaint challenging the sale of a public company with a controlling private equity sponsor to an unrelated, arms-length buyer, finding that the sale was potentially tainted by conflicts of interest.[1]  In particular, the court found that it was reasonably conceivable that the private equity sponsor’s receipt of an early termination payment under a tax receivable agreement put into place upon the target company’s initial public offering was a material non-ratable benefit, which may have led the sponsor to push for a sale (which would trigger the early termination payment), even if remaining a standalone company would have been better for the minority stockholders. The opinion also touches on important issues relating to financial advisors’ advice in connection with such a sale. While tax receivable agreements (“TRAs”) are common in sponsor-backed and “Up-C” IPOs, this case highlights a rarely considered issue involving these agreements, and the need for careful navigation of related potential conflicts of interest in a sale process where a private equity sponsor, and TRA beneficiary, continues to control the public company.

Continue Reading Delaware Chancery Court Finds Private Equity Sponsor’s Tax Receivable Agreement Potentially Led to Conflicted Sale Process

On April 4, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its decision on a stockholder suit challenging the fairness of IAC/InterActiveCorp’s separation from its controlled subsidiary, Match Group, Inc.[1]  In this decision, the Delaware Supreme Court provided clarity and guidance on two important issues involving the application of the MFW framework.

Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court Provides Important Guidance on Application of MFW Framework to Controlling Stockholder Transactions