In this issue: The Vivendi Ruling: Revisiting Three Key Issues (and Adding Two More); Delaware Chancery Court Update: Recent Decisions Shed New Light on Stapled Financing Offered by Financial Advisors, Duties of Directors with Respect to Poison Pills; Second Circuit’s MBIA Decision Forces Defendants to Choose Whether Securities Fraud Claims are Time-barred or Not Properly Pled; Trial or Settle? The Integrated e-Discovery Experience vs. Other Methods; and The State of Engagement Between U.S. Corporations and Shareholders.

Excerpt from 'The Vivendi Ruling...':

In the March 2010 issue of Securities Litigation Report, we reviewed the January 2010 jury verdict in In re Vivendi Universal S.A. Securities Litigation in the Southern District of New York, and identified three aspects of the verdict that stood out to us as interesting. The jury had found no liability with respect to Vivendi’s former CEO Jean-Marie Messier and its former CFO Guillaume Hannezo, and that Vivendi Universal S.A. (Vivendi) had committed securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Immediately following the discharge of the jury, Vivendi orally renewed an earlier motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). Vivendi also orally moved for a new trial under Rule 59. In briefing, Vivendi styled its motion as a motion for JMOL or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The plaintiffs moved for entry of judgment. Judge Richard J. Holwell issued a 121-page opinion on February 17, 2011, nearly a year after the motions were filed.