After being sued, the board of trustees of the First Trust closed-end funds announced that they have “determined to rescind the control share provisions.”

U.S. District Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss in dispute over $32.5 million termination fee payment.

Morris Kandinov LLP represents investors in a dispute over a SPAC’s remaining assets in a dissolution after a failed transaction resulted in a termination fee.

Matt Levine writes about the key issue raised by three new SPAC cases filed by Morris Kandinov LLP: “Who gets the cash: the public shareholders, or the sponsors?”

The court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss claims arising from a closed-end fund’s collapse and subsequent unfair merger.

The amended complaint in the Infinity Q case includes further details regarding the flawed and deficient oversight of the Fund’s valuation of securities, which resulted in manipulation and inflation of the fund’s reported assets by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Morris Kandinov LLP has filed a case on behalf of Lightning eMotors, Inc. (previously known as GigCapital 3, Inc.), which entered the public markets through a SPAC transaction based on misrepresentations regarding its business prospects.

During and after a crisis, trustees more than ever must be prepared to shift the way they think about the fund’s relationships with service providers in order to obtain meaningful results for shareholders (and mitigate or eliminate their own litigation risk). This article provides an example of what not to do and a few practical suggestions.

Morris Kandinov LLP has filed an action seeking books and records in connection with its client’s investigation of misconduct at Lordstown Motors (RIDE).

A recent BoardIQ article demonstrates, in my view, the perverse way in which trustees are encouraged to think about an investment adviser’s business.