In This Issue:

- Form BE-10 Filing Deadline Extended

- Delaware Supreme Court Holds That Plaintiffs Must Specifically Plead Non-Exculpated Claims Against Disinterested Directors in Transaction Under Entire Fairness Review to Survive Motion to Dismiss

- Former Olympic Games Sponsor Settles With SEC for $25 Million Over FCPA Violations

- Second Circuit Dismisses Suit Over FBI’s Wiretapping of Marital Conversations in Securities Fraud Investigation

- UK PRA Consults on Application of Resolution Stays to Third-Country Agreements

- ESMA Calls for EMIR Modifications to UCITS Directive

- Excerpt Delaware Supreme Court Holds That Plaintiffs Must Specifically Plead Non-Exculpated Claims Against Disinterested Directors in Transaction Under Entire Fairness Review to Survive Motion to Dismiss:

In In re Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc. Stockholder Litigation/Leal v. Meeks, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed decisions of the Delaware Chancery Court denying director-defendants’ motions to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims brought in connection with two transactions involving controlling stockholders. In reversing the Delaware Chancery Court’s decisions, the Delaware Supreme Court held that a plaintiff seeking only monetary damages must plead non-exculpated claims against a director who is protected by an exculpatory charter provision to survive a motion to dismiss, regardless of the underlying standard of review for the board’s conduct. The cases were remanded for the Delaware Chancery Court to determine whether the plaintiffs sufficiently pled facts suggesting that the independent directors committed a non-exculpated breach of their fiduciary duties.