United States: The M&A Aftermath Of High Court's Emulex Punt

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Tuesday to dismiss the writ of certiorari in Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian as "improvidently granted," it left behind a great deal of confusion in the federal securities laws governing corporate mergers and acquisitions.

In Emulex, a former shareholder of Emulex filed a putative securities class action alleging violations of Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the company's recommendation that its shareholders accept a tender offer (i.e., a public offer to buy shares of a public company at a certain price within a certain time). In particular, the shareholder alleged that the defendants improperly failed to disclose a "premium analysis" that was used by Emulex's financial adviser in opining that the transaction was fair to the company's shareholders. The district court dismissed the claim with prejudice, holding that Section 14(e) requires a showing of scienter (fraudulent intent) and that the shareholder had failed to adequately plead that element of its claim.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit created an appellate court split over the proper mental state standard for Section 14(e) claims. While every other circuit court to address the issue (five, in total) has found that plaintiffs must prove the defendants acted with scienter, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a showing of only negligence is required. The Supreme Court granted Emulex's writ of certiorari to resolve this circuit split.

Along the way, however, a different issue came to dominate the case. Emulex, as petitioner, also argued that there was no basis for inferring an implied private right of action under Section 14(e). The statute is silent as to whether private litigants (as opposed to the federal government) can bring an action and reflects no congressional intent to create a private remedy. As a result, Emulex asserted, the court should find that under its precedent no implied private right of action exists. Emulex barely raised this issue before the Ninth Circuit, and focused primarily on the mental state question in its petition, but the implied private right of action issue nevertheless became a key argument in the merits briefing and at oral argument.

The existence of implied private rights of action under Section 14 certainly is an important issue. Ever since the Delaware Chancery Court's decision in In re Trulia Inc. Stockholder Litigation,1 which raised the bar for the approval of disclosure-only settlement in mergers and acquisitions litigation, shareholders have increasingly opted to instead challenge these transactions in federal court. Indeed, investors contest nearly every significant merger or acquisition involving public companies in federal court by alleging that there were misstatements in the proxy or tender offer materials.

These cases are brought pursuant to Section 14, but under exactly which provision depends on how the merger or acquisition transaction is structured. Section 14(a) covers misstatements made in connection with proxy solicitations, while Section 14(e) covers misstatements made in connection with tender offers. To give a sense of the scale of the issue, 182 of these actions were filed by investors in 2018 alone, an exponential increase over the historical average.2

However, there is a significant tilt toward Section 14(a) claims involving proxy solicitations, with 156 of these actions including a claim under that provision.3 Section 14 actions usually are resolved at an early stage so as to avoid holding up the transaction, acting as an inefficient "merger tax" that mainly enriches plaintiffs lawyers in the form of fee payments.

While the court held in J. I Case Company v. Borak in 1964 that there is an implied private right of action for Section 14(a) claims, it has never addressed the issue as to Section 14(e) claims. At oral argument in Emulex, the court appeared to agree that the existence of an implied private right of action was an open question, but at least five justices exp

Notably, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked the petitioners whether considering it would be the equivalent of "rewarding you for not raising it adequately below, rewarding you for mentioning it in two sentences in your cert petition and not asking us to take it as a separate question presented?" On the other hand, there appeared to be considerable support for a finding that the required mental state standard should be scienter (as found by the majority of circuit courts), with justices noting that Section 14(e) is similar to other federal securities provisions that the court has found to require scienter.

In the end, however, the court dismissed the appeal based on the writ of certiorari being "improvidently granted" (commonly known as a DIG). The dismissal order does not contain an explanation for the court's decision, but one possibility is that a majority of the justices were inclined to find that there is no implied private right of action for Section 14(e) claims (rendering the issue of the proper mental state moot), but did not believe that the question was properly before them. When the court has described this type of DIG in the past, it has said that it was unable to reach the question accepted for review without first reaching a threshold issue not presented by the petition.4

While a DIG solves the court's problem, it does little for companies and their shareholders. There are at least three important consequences.

First, the court agreed to hear Emulex to resolve the circuit split over the Section 14(e) mental state standard, but that question now remains unresolved. Meanwhile, venue for Section 14 claims is available in any federal district where the defendant is found or does business. The Ninth Circuit already is home to more merger-related securities suits than any other circuit, with its tech centers generating attractive acquisition targets. The establishment of a negligence standard in that court will ensure that the Ninth Circuit is the go-to venue for these cases, with companies facing a much greater threat of abusive, merger-tax litigation.

Second, Section 14(a) and Section 14(e) address two ways of effecting the same potential transaction (i.e., change in corporate control by proxy solicitation or tender offer). Left to their own devices, however, the appellate courts have failed to reach consensus as to the mental state standards for these claims. The Ninth Circuit requires negligence for claims brought under Sections 14(e) and 14(a), while the Sixth Circuit requires scienter for both. None of the other circuits have applied a uniform standard: the Second and Third Circuits apply scienter for 14(e) but negligence for 14(a), and the remaining circuits have addressed either one provision or the other, or neither. Justice Stephen Breyer noted at the Emulex oral argument that it seemed nonsensical to have the provisions require different mental states. Following the DIG, however, the jurisprudence surrounding Section 14 claims remains a jumbled mess.

Finally, it is not clear how a suitable Section 14(e) case will make its way to the court in the near future, even though the court may be willing to find that there is no implied private right of action at all. The most promising path would appear to be a Section 14(e) case brought in a circuit that has not previously addressed the implied private right of action issue, and where the corporate defendant has the fortitude to fight about that issue through multiple appeals.

Given the significant and increasing volume of Section 14 cases, Emulex presented a situation that loudly "call[ed] for an exercise of [the Supreme] Court's supervisory power" to resolve the disarray in the lower courts.5 The Emulex DIG means that companies and their shareholders may have to wait quite some time for that to finally happe


1. In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litig., 129 A.3d 885 (Del. Ch. 2016),

2. See Cornerstone Research, Securities Class Action Filings: 2018 Year in Review 2, 5 (2019) (showing a sharp increase in annual federal M&A filings alleging Section 14 claims, from 40 in 2010 to 182 in 2018).

3. Data compiled by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. Some matters may include both Section 14(a) and Section 14(e) claims.

4. See E. Gressman, K. Geller, et al., Supreme Court Practice 359-362 (9th Ed. 2007).

5. S. Ct. R. 10(a).

Originally published by Law360

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions