Item 3. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
From time to time, we may be subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. We have received, and may in the future continue to receive, claims from third parties asserting, among other things, infringement of their intellectual property rights. Future litigation may be necessary to defend ourselves, our partners and our customers by determining the scope, enforceability and validity of third-party proprietary rights, or to establish our proprietary rights. The results of any current or future litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, and regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.
DocuSign, Inc. Securities Litigation and Related Derivative Litigation
On February 8, 2022, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Weston v. DocuSign, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00824, naming DocuSign and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. An amended complaint was filed on July 8, 2022. As amended, the suit purports to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements about our business and prospects during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. As amended, the suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2022. We moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 16, 2022.
An earlier action alleging similar claims against the same defendants, captioned Collins v. DocuSign, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00851, filed in the Eastern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California, was voluntarily dismissed on February 14, 2022.
Four putative shareholder derivative cases have been filed containing allegations based on or similar to those in the securities class action (Weston). The cases were filed on May 17, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Potteti v. Springer, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00652; on May 19, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Lapin v. Springer, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02980; on May 20, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Votto v. Springer, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02987; and on September 20, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Fox v. Springer, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-05343. Each case is allegedly brought on the Company’s behalf. The suits name the Company as a nominal defendant and, depending on the particular case, the members of our board of directors or, in certain instances, current or former officers, as defendants. While the complaints vary, they are based largely on the same underlying allegations as the securities class action suit described above (Weston), as well as, in certain instances, alleged insider trading. Collectively, these lawsuits purport to assert claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting such breach, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, and under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints seek to recover unspecified damages and other relief on the Company’s behalf. By court order dated July 19, 2022, the two cases in the Northern District of California (Lapin and Votto) have been consolidated and stayed in light of the securities class action and no response to the complaints in the action will be due unless and until the stay is lifted. The third case in the Northern District of California (Fox) was related to the other derivative suits and assigned to the same judge, and was similarly stayed by order of the court on December 2, 2022. The Delaware suit (Potteti) was voluntarily dismissed on September 1, 2022, and then re-filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on September 22, 2022, under the caption Pottetti v. Springer, et al., Case No. C.A. 2022-0852-PAF. The Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order on September 30,2022 staying the action in light of the securities class action and no response to the complaint will be due unless and until the stay is lifted.
DocuSign, Inc.| 2023 Form 10-K | 38
DocuSign Civil Litigation
On October 25, 2022, an action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Daniel D. Springer v. Mary Agnes Wilderotter and DocuSign, Inc., Civil Action No. 2022-0963-LWW, concerning Mr. Springer’s resignation from our board of directors. Mr. Springer’s complaint sought relief determining that he did not resign from his position on our board of directors and remains a director, and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the civil action. To avoid the cost and distraction of further litigation with Mr. Springer, the Company offered to stipulate to entry of judgment in favor of Mr. Springer as to his disputed resignation and his status as a member of our Board. Following our offer, on January 11, 2023, the Chancery Court issued an order declaring and confirming that (i) Mr. Springer has not resigned from the Board and (ii) Mr. Springer is currently a member of the Board. Mr. Springer subsequently filed a motion seeking payment of his attorneys’ fees. DocuSign has opposed this motion, which remains pending before the Chancery Court.
In addition, on January 26, 2023, Mr. Springer delivered a demand for arbitration before JAMS, a private alternative dispute resolution firm, captioned Daniel D. Springer v. DocuSign, Inc. and Mary Agnes Wilderotter. In the demand, Mr. Springer alleges that he was wrongfully terminated as CEO; asserts related claims against DocuSign and Ms. Wilderotter, including defamation, withholding promised compensation and breach of contract; and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. DocuSign has engaged legal counsel to defend the matter, and on March 10, 2023, submitted a motion to dismiss several of the causes of action asserted in the demand.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.
PART II - OTHER INFORMATION