The two law professors behind the lawsuit told the press their motivation was to reform the entire SPAC industry.

Judge as of 19 August 2021. True if, by that date, published press coverage quotes or reports the two law professors behind the lawsuit against Pershing Square Tontine Holdings (John Morley and Robert Jackson Jr.) stating that their aim was to reform the SPAC industry as a whole (including the word 'reform' or an equivalent statement of industry-wide reform aims). Mostly true if the professors told the press their aim was broad SPAC-industry change in wording close to but not exactly 'reform', or one professor said it on behalf of both. Mixed if the professors made statements about wider SPAC concerns that can be read either way as a motivation for the lawsuit. Mostly false if their press statements addressed only problems in SPACs generally without describing it as their motivation for the suit, so the claim overstates what they said. False if no such statements to the press by the professors exist in coverage up to that date and they described their motivation solely in terms of the specific case, or they explicitly denied industry-reform aims.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 49 Law Firms Unite and Push Back on Recent SPAC Litigation｜SPACInsider SPACInsider · 27 August 2021

   “the law professors let it be known via Reuters that they intend to sue “dozens” of additional SPACs based on “reforming” the asset class.”

2. E2 Suit against William Ackman's SPAC raises questions for all SPACs Business Times (Singapore), reprinting NYTimes coverage · 18 August 2021

   “The suit was filed in US District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a SPAC shareholder by Robert Jackson, a former commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and John Morley, a law professor at Yale.”

E2 (SPACInsider) reports that the two law professors told Reuters they intended to sue dozens more SPACs based on 'reforming' the asset class. That supports the claim that they described industry-wide reform as their aim. However, E2 is dated after the judge date, reports the statement secondhand, and does not date the Reuters article. E3 confirms the suit had been filed by Jackson and Morley by 18 August 2021, but it contains no reform quote. Because of the date gap and the secondhand reporting, the verdict is mostly true rather than true.