The D & O Diary : Directors and Officers Liability and Insurance : The D & O Diary : Kevin LaCroix : Securities Laws, Corporate Fraud, D & O Litigation

Securities lawsuit filings remained elevated during the first half of 2008. The 105 new securities lawsuit filings during the first six months of 2008 were more than 50% higher than the number of new securities lawsuit filings (69) in the first six months of 2007. (Please refer to the note below regarding my lawsuit filing “count”, which may differ from some other published tallies).

The 204 new securities lawsuit filings during the 12-month period from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 is 15% higher than the 176 filings for the full year 2007 and also represents a 65% increase compared to the 123 filings during the 12-month period from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. The 204 new securities lawsuit filings during the 12-month period ending on June 30, 2008 is the highest 12-month total since the period July 2004 through June 2005, during which 228 lawsuits were filed.

The 105 lawsuits filed during the first half of 2008 projects to a year-end total of 210 securities lawsuit filings, meaning that the filing rate is above the post-PSLRA filing average. According to Cornerstone Research, here, the annual average number of securities class action lawsuits during the period from 1996 to 2006 was 194.

A year end total of 210 filings would also represent the highest annual total since 2004, when 237 securities lawsuits were filed. (Because my YTD lawsuit count omits a number of lawsuits, for reasons discussed below, my YTD tally and my year-end projection may be lower the numbers that may appear in other published sources.)

The most significant factor in the elevated securities filing activity is the number of new lawsuits associated with the subprime and credit crisis. 58 of the first half filings (about 55%) of the first half securities lawsuit filings are subprime or credit crisis related. As reflected on my running tally of the securities class action lawsuits, which may be accessed here, the total number of subprime and credit crisis related lawsuits, including those filed in 2007 as well as those filed in 2008, now stands at 98. (Please refer to the note below regarding the recent revisions to my subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuit tally.)

Only 46 of the 105 first-half securities lawsuit filings were not subprime or credit crisis-related, meaning that the subprime related litigation unquestionably was a driving factor in the elevated securities lawsuit filing levels (although one might also speculate that other filings are down because the plaintiffs’ securities’ bar is preoccupied with the still emerging subprime litigation).

The subprime and credit crisis filings show no sign of abating. Of the 58 subprime lawsuits filed in the first half of 2008, 29 – exactly half-- were filed in the second quarter, including eleven in June alone. This continued steady filing level suggests that the subprime and credit crisis-related litigation wave will continue during the second half of 2008.

An analysis of the first half filings by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code confirms the foregoing conclusions. Although the companies sued in the first half of 2008 represented 56 different SIC Code categories, fully 62 of the lawsuits (or about 59% of the first half filings) were filed against companies in the 6000 SIC Code series (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate). The two most prominent SIC Code categories were SIC Code 6021 (National Commercial Banks), which had 17 lawsuits, and SIC Code 6211 (Security Broker Dealers), which had 14 lawsuits. No other single SIC Code category outside the 6000 SIC Code series had more than three lawsuits. (Please refer to the note below regarding SIC Code categorization.)

These statistics underscore an important point about the subprime and credit crisis related litigation. That is, with a couple of arguable exceptions, the subprime and credit crisis related litigation wave really has not spread beyond the financial sector. Although I have long speculated (most recently here) that the credit crisis litigation might hit nonfinancial companies, by and large that has not yet happened, at least not to any significant degree.

One consequence of the predominance of the subprime and credit crisis related litigation is that many of the first half lawsuits involved nontraditional plaintiffs and defendants. The traditional or conventional securities lawsuit to which I refer here involves a securities class action lawsuit brought by public company shareholders against the company and its directors and officers. This traditional type of securities lawsuit may sometimes include other third party defendants such as the company’s auditors or the company’s offering underwriters.

But many of the first half lawsuits involve plaintiffs other than public company shareholders. For example, among the first half filings were 17 auction rate securities lawsuits, in which the plaintiffs were not public company shareholders, but rather auction rate securities investors who were suing the broker dealers or financial institutions that sold them the instruments. (The securities issuers were not usually targeted in these lawsuits.) Refer here for my prior discussion of the auction rate securities lawsuits.

Similarly, the multiple securities lawsuits brought by mortgage-backed securities investors against the financial institutions that created the instruments also do not involve traditional shareholder plaintiffs. In addition, as I discussed here, the plaintiffs lawyers have chosen to bring many of these lawsuits against the securitizers in state court, to be be removed subsequently by the defendants to federal court. So the first half 2008 filing total is also noteworthy for its inclusion of a number of state-court initiated lawsuits.

The credit crisis litigation wave has also hit a number of nontraditional defendants. Rather than targeting just public company defendants, the plaintiffs in many of these lawsuits targeted, for example, hedge funds (refer here) and mutual funds (refer here). The presence of these nontraditional defendants sometimes pose some tough questions at the margins about whether or not a specific lawsuit should be included in the lawsuit count, as discussed further below.

It is probably worth noting that in addition to the lawsuits from the current credit crisis-related litigation wave, the first half filings also included two options backdating-related securities lawsuits filings.

Companies domiciled outside the United States were sued in 19 of the first half new securities lawsuit filings, representing 12 different countries, including four each from Canada and from Switzerland.

The lawsuits filed against domestic companies included corporate defendants from 27 different states, with the largest number from New York (22 lawsuits) and California (11 lawsuits).

The lawsuits were filed in 26 different U.S. district courts, but by far the largest number were filed in the Southern District of New York, where 43 (or about 41%) of the 105 lawsuits were filed. Other courts with a significant number of filings included the District of Massachusetts (11 lawsuits), the Northern District of Illinois (8 lawsuits), the Central District of California (5 lawsuits) and the Northern District of California (5 lawsuits).

A Note about “Counting” Lawsuits: As noted above, the presence of nontraditional plaintiffs and defendants, as well as the emergence of state court and other nontraditional filings, raises many hard questions about what to include in the lawsuit count. These factors by themselves create significant potential for different lawsuit counts.

In addition, the pattern of much of this litigation also poses some “counting” challenges. A couple of examples will illustrate the problem

Lehman Brothers (or at least one of its officers) was first sued in February 2008 in the Northern District of Illinois. That lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. A second Northern District of Illinois lawsuit involving Lehman Brothers was filed in April 2008. Then a separate lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York in June 2008. I have only counted this litigation once, as has, for example, the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (as shown here).

By contrast, Falcon Strategies, a Citigroup-affiliated hedge fund, was sued in a securities lawsuit in April 2008, in federal court in Florida. That lawsuit was later voluntarily dismissed. (Refer here). Then the fund was sued in May 2008 in federal court in New York in a tender offer-related securities lawsuit (refer here) I could see counting this litigation once, but the Stanford website has counted each lawsuit separately and so have I.

But while I am in accord with the Stanford website to that extent, I could not agree with the Stanford site on some other specifics. For example, one of the lawsuits on their list is the Safeco litigation (refer here). The Safeco lawsuit is a merger objection suit. I have never counted these kinds of lawsuits in my tallies; were this lawsuit to be included, a whole raft of other merger objection litigation would also arguably have to be included. In my opinion, this lawsuit should not be counted in the securities lawsuit tally, but reasonable minds clearly could differ.

Similarly, the 2008 lawsuit involving Heartland Resources (about which refer here) contains allegations that the defendants improperly failed to register certain limited partnership interests. Alleged violations of the obligation to register securities seem to me to be fundamentally different than a lawsuit for securities law damages based on alleged misrepresentations or omissions relating to publicly traded securities. Reasonable minds could differ on this issue as well, but to my mind this kind of lawsuit should not “count.” This analysis applies not just to the Heartland Resources lawsuit, but also to the lawsuits involving Maximum Financial Group (refer here) and WCI Communities (refer here).

I have illustrated this analysis in detail here first to show how tricky this whole "counting" exercise is, and second to explain why there may be differences between my tallies and some others that may be published, including for example any lawsuit count based on the Stanford website. That does not mean that I think mine is right and the others are wrong – as I have stressed throughout, reasonable minds could differ on many of the specifics. The most important thing is that the various analyses are directionally consistent, which undoubtedly is and will be the case. The marginal differences are relatively unimportant.

A Note about SIC Code Categorization: As discussed above, the first half 2008 lawsuits include some filed against nonconventional defendants, including some, like hedge funds and mutual funds, that have not been assigned to an SIC Code category. In addition, many of the lawsuits included a host of related entity defendants.

Where the list of defendants includes a public company, I have used the public company’s SIC Code, even if it is not the primary defendant. Similarly, where a fund defendant is affiliated with a public company, I have used the public company’s SIC Code.

Nevertheless, there were a total of three of the lawsuits filed in the first half where I was unable to assign any SIC Code. These cases primarily involve mutual fund defendants.

A Note about the Subprime Lawsuit Tally: Regular readers know that I have been maintaining a running tally of the subprime and credit crisis-related securities lawsuits (which may accessed here). Readers that have been monitoring the list closely over time may have been somewhat surprised by the credit crisis lawsuit numbers I have used in this mid-year analysis. These numbers may appear suddenly larger than more recent tallies.

The reason for this adjustment is that as part of this mid-year review, I undertook a comprehensive audit of my lawsuit lists, and, in particular I conducted a cross-comparison with the Stanford website and a number of other sources.

As a result of this process, I added several items to my list of subprime securities lawsuits. Some of these additions were required because I had simply omitted certain items (where, for example, I was aware of the lawsuit but had simply neglected to add it to the list). Some of the additions were the result of recategorization, some simply new additions. All of these additions are highlighted in red in my updated list, which can be accessed here.

Break in the Action: The D&O Diary will slowing down in the next few days and will resume its normal publication schedule during the week of July 7.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Eastern cultures ascribe events to destiny, fate, or “karma.” But in our culture we demand to know who is to blame. The Zeitgeist of America’s blame culture apparently has decreed that Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, the former Bear Stearns fund managers, are to be the first level scapegoats for the subprime crisis. The “perp walk” to which they were subjected last week – why? Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?—is now a standard component of the American blame ritual.

But a review of the charges against them does raise some concerns. Indeed, many observers have already questioned the proceedings.

A number of commentators have observed that Cioffi and Tannin’s alleged misrepresentations were no different than those of many others on Wall Street. Indeed, both Bloomberg’s Caroline Baum (here) and Professor Peter Henning of the White Collar Crime Prof blog (here) see little difference between Cioffi and Tannin’s statements about the Bear funds and the remarks of Bear Stearn’s CEO Alan Scwartz two days before the company’s collapse that “our liquidity position has not changed.” Professor Ribstein, on his Ideoblog (here), suggests that the difference between Cioffi and Tannin on the one hand, and Schwarz on the other, is that Cioffi and Tannin made the mistake of being hedge fund managers rather than corporate executives (“the bad luck of their chosen line of work”)

Some commentators even question the culpability of the two individuals’ alleged misrepresentations. As Professor Henning notes:

A false hope that the hedge funds would pull through, no matter how misguided, can be a defense to a fraud charge. Showing that Cioffi and Tannin were of two minds, or conflicted about where the market was headed, does not mean that the statements to investors were part of a fraudulent scheme.

Professor Henning goes on to observe:

As a Wall Street case, the charges seem a bit thin to me. Hedge fund managers are essentially salesmen, touting their wares in much the same way that the man in the used car lot has a great deal for you….The fact that Wall Street salesmen talked out of both sides of their mouths is nothing new.

Professor Henning also questions the significance of Cioffi’s withdrawl of $2 million from one of the funds, noting that “withdrawing your own money is not the type of theft one expects to see in a fraud case.”

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece today (here), former prosecutor Robert Mintz suggests that the duo’s biggest mistake was failing first – “these two were among the first to see their funds implode and that, perhaps more than any other reason, is why they now find themselves facing the prospect of significant jail time.”

These observations are all interesting and might (perhaps under different circumstances) suggest that the government could face an uphill battle. However, the circumstances demand a burnt offering and that is why Cioffi and Tannin were dragged into the public square. A burnt offering we shall have.

There is one additional element of the indictment that has not received as much attention that may be worth noting here. That is, as discussed in the U.S. Attorney’s June 19, 2008 press release (here), one element of the indictment relates to a possible cover up. The press release states that, after the SEC had requested the production of documents and materials in Summer 2007, Tannin’s “tablet computer” and Cioff’s “notebook” apparently “went missing."

One of the ineradicable lessons from the Watergate era is that the evasion will get you even if the underlying conduct does not. (Just ask Martha Stewart.) If the government can show that the defendants did inappropriately dispose of their technological devices as part of an evasion, the cover-up charges could loom a great deal larger.

And while the commentators may question the criminal indictment, they recognize that the alleged misconduct might support civil liability. Indeed, Professor Ribstein acknowledges that while “not a criminal case,” this “sort of case is suited for a civil fraud claim.” It has been somewhat overshadowed by the criminal indictment, but the SEC did in fact file a civil enforcement proceeding against Cioffi and Tannin at the same time as the indictment.

The SEC enforcement action (as described in the SEC’s June 19, 2008 Litigation Release, here), contains additional allegations against the two, including for example, that they “misrepresented the funds’ deteriorating condition and the level of investor redemption requests in order to bring in new money and keep existing investors and institutional counterparties from withdrawing money.” Among other things, the SEC alleges that Cioffi and Tannin “misrepresented their funds’ investment in subprime mortgage-backed securities.” It is alleged that the funds’ monthly performance summaries described the exposure as from 6 to 8 percent, when it supposedly later emerged that the “total subprime exposure – direct and indirect—was approximately 60 percent.”

The SEC seeks “permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of all illegal profits plus prejudgment interest, and the imposition of civil monetary penalties.” But as serious as are these proposed sanctions, they still pale by comparison to the threat of incarceration the individuals face as a result of the criminal indictment.

As the U.S. Attorney’s press release states, “if convicted of securities fraud, Cioffi and Tannin face maximum sentences of 20 years imprisonment. If convicted of conspiracy, they each face a maximum sentence of five years.”

All of which leads to the final question. As Robert Mintz asked in his Journal op-ed piece today, “are we attempting to criminalize conduct primarily based upon the fact that we now know that the investing decisions led to a bad end?”

UPDATE: Professor Jay Brown has a paritcularly good post today on these same themes on his Race to the Bottom blog (here). Among other things, Professor Brown says that "this matter should be left to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the private investors...It should not be left to the criminal authorities."

Just the Thing: Even more American than the instinct to blame is the propensity for someone to try and profit off of another’s misfortune. And in that spirit, readers may be interested to know that a Ralph Cioffi signed Bear Stearns Hedge Fund Christmas Card is available (here) on eBay. As of the time of this blog post, the current bid was $81.

Sometimes I feel like the entire world is nothing more than abstraction of the old comic strip, The Strange World of Mr. Mum.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A June 18, 2008 opinion (here) by Judge Gerald Lynch in the coverage litigation between former Refco directors and officers and one of the company’s excess D&O insurers presents a veritable conflagration of policy application issues, including perennial questions concerning warranties, severability, and imputation, as well as a host of related issues arising from the policy procurement process itself.

Background: In the year preceding Refco’s ill-fated August 2005 IPO, Refco had maintained a $30 million D&O liability insurance program (the 2004-2005 program). In connection with its IPO, Refco obtained a total of $70 million of D&O insurance for the period from August 11, 2005 to August 11, 2006 (the 2005-2006 program). Both programs were arranged in multiple layers, with a primary carrier and several excess carriers.

In connection with placement of the 2004-2005 program, Refco completed the primary carrier’s insurance application (the “Application”). In addition, one of the excess insurers (and the ultimate litigant in the coverage dispute) required that the company submit a Warranty Letter on behalf of all insureds, affirming that no person for whom the insurance was proposed is “cognizant of any fact, circumstance, situation, act, error or omissions which … might afford grounds for any Claim.”

The Warranty Letter, submitted to the excess carrier on January 21, 2005, was signed by Phillip Bennett, Refco’s CEO. It later was revealed that Refco had an undisclosed $430 million receivable due from an entity Bennett controlled. The company subsequently collapsed, and Bennett, among other has pled guilty to an array of criminal offenses.  

At least as appears from the June 18 opinion, there were no additional applications or warranties in connection with the placement of the 2005-2006 program.

Following Refco’s October 2005 collapse, the company’s directors and officers were the target of extensive litigation, for which they sought defense expense coverage under the 2005-2006 program. The primary and first layer excess carriers advanced their entire limits (totaling $17.5 million) in payment of defense expense, subject to repayment of it is determined that there is no coverage under the policies.

The Coverage Denial:

The second level excess insurer, by letter dated March 6, 2006, denied coverage for the claims under its 2005-2006 policies. As the basis for its denial, the second level excess insurer relied on the representations in the Warranty letter and Refco’s failure to answer question 12(b) on the primary carrier’s Application (which asked whether any proposed insured was “aware of any fact, circumstance or situation” that might give rise to a claim).

The second level excess insurer also relied on a “Knowledge Exclusion” that was included in the insurer’s policy when issued in March 2006 (which was at or about the same time as the insurer issue its coverage denial). The Knowledge Exclusion essentially provides that the second level excess insurer is not liable for any loss (including defense expense) “in connection with any claim arising out of, based upon or attributable to any claim, fact or circumstance disclosed or required to be disclosed” in Question 12(b) of the Application.

The Coverage Litigation:

In May 2007, the second level excess insurer initiated an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court seeking a judicial declaration of noncoverage under its 2005-2006 policy, largely for reasons enumerated in its March 2006 denial letter. Several of the individual Refco officers and directors filed an answer and counterclaim, among other things seeking an injunction compelling the second level insurer to advance defense fees. The bankruptcy court entered an order in October 2007 requiring the insurer to advance defense expense, which the insurer has now done, as a result of which its $10 million limit is now depleted.

The second level excess carrier refilled its declaratory judgment complaint in federal district court, again seeking a judicial declaration of noncoverage. The individuals refilled their counterclaims, seeking a determination of coverage. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which were the subject of the June 18 opinion.

The June 18 Opinion

In reviewing the court’s rulings, it is important to note that the summary judgment motions were filed pre-discovery. This unusual procedural posture was a critical factor in the court’s decisions process, as the court, pursuant to established authority, was reluctant to interject merits-based rulings where further discovery might provide additional factual context.

The insureds argued that the Warranty Letter had been submitted in connection with the placement of the 2004-2005 program and therefore was not a part of the second level carrier’s 2005-2006 policy. The insurer for its part argued that the Warranty Letter did relate to the placement of the 2005-2006 policy and that in any event it relied on the Warranty Letter when making underwriting decisions in connection with the 2005-2006 policy. The insurer submitted an affidavit from its underwriter in support of its assertions. Judge Lynch concluded that “genuine issues of material fact abound as to whether the Warranty Letter is properly part of the 2005-2006 [policy].”

The insureds further argued that in any event, the applicable “severability provision” bars the insurer from imputing Bennett’s knowledge to the other insureds and therefore the Warranty Letter could not serve as a basis to deny coverage to them. The severability provision was contained in an Endorsement to the Primary Policy. The insurer argued that the severability provision restricted the imputation of knowledge exclusively to statements in the primary insurer’s Application, and therefore it had no bearing on the second level excess insurer’s ability to rely on the Warranty Letter, which was not part of the Application. Judge Lynch agreed, and he therefore denied the insureds’ summary judgment motion based on the application severability provision.

Judge Lynch similarly rejected the second level excess insurer’s attempt to rely on Bennett’s failure Question 12(b) on the Application. Judge Lynch found that the insurer’s issuance of its 2005-2006 policy without challenging the omission of an answer to Question 12(b) was a waiver of any objection to coverage on that basis.

With respect to the second level excess carrier’s attempt to rely on the so-called Knowledge Exclusion to deny coverage, the insureds argued that the insurer’s coverage binder had not listed the Knowledge Exclusion as an endorsement that was to be added to the policy, nor had the company’s broker authorized the addition of the Knowledge Exclusion. The insureds argued that the insurer had “unilaterally changed the terms of the 2005-2006 [policy] after learning of the events that would give rise to a claim.”

The insurer countered that the company’s broker had authorized the addition of the exclusion. The insureds contended this response “fundamentally misconstrues” the meaning of the broker’s communications. These arguments clearly reflect the detailed particulars and disputed meaning of communications between the broker and the underwriter, which Judge Lynch found suffices to raise a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the issue.

The insureds further arged that the severability of exclusions language in the primary policy precluded application of the Knowledge Exclusion to them. They argued that even if Bennett’s knowledge triggered the exclusion, the excluded state of mind could not be imputed to them. Judge Lynch found that the severability of exclusions provision in the primary policy applied only to the exclusions in the primary policy, and not to the Knowledge Exclusion which was found only in the second level excess insurer’s policy.

Discussion:

The court’s opinion does not represent a definitive conclusion either for or against coverage under the policy. Indeed, at its most basic level, the court’s opinion merely represents a determination to allow discovery as a prelude to a later merits-based determination.

But the opinion raises too many questions about the potential availability to insurers of coverage defenses, and about the limitations of insureds’ policy protections, for the opinion not to raise a host of concerns. The concerns fall into two basic categories – that is, the concerns that are substantive and the concerns that are procedural.

The substantive concerns are numerous and relate to many of highest profile issues in the D&O insurance arena, including the use, applicability and duration of warranties and warranty letters; the extent of protection afforded to “innocent insureds” by severability provisions (including both application severability and exclusion severability); and the extent to which insureds may (or may not) be able rely on policy protections in the primary policy to preclude the assertion of policy defenses by an excess insurer.

The procedural concerns are perhaps equally significant for practitioners in the field. Judge Lynch’s opinion underscores the potential importance of communications between broker and underwriter and is a reminder of the opportunities for and dangers of ambiguities in communications (or, as the insureds would argue, supposed ambiguities). Perhaps these issues will get sorted out in later decisions in the case, but current state of play in the case raises troubling concerns about the pitfalls of the policy procurement process while providing little guidance (except by negative inference) about how those pitfalls might be avoided in the future.

There may yet be further ruling in the case that will clarify the issues. But the opinion nevertheless highlights that many of the issues the industry has been struggling with for the last decade – including in particular severability and imputation issues – remain very much alive and continue to pose significant concerns, and indeed may have edges that have not previously been addressed or even contemplated.

Two final observations about the case. The first is that the parties appear to have exhausted at least $27.5 million of the $70 million tower on defense expense alone, which is yet another reminder of the extraordinary expense involved in catastrophic type claims (a topic I discussed in a recent post, here).

The other observation is that yet again a critical D&O coverage decision has arisen in a case involving defenses raised by a follow-form excess insurer (see my prior comments on this issue here). The issues involved here underscore the myriad of difficulties that potentially can arise as losses escalate through a multilayer program. I do not mean to suggest any views one way or the other about the merits of the excess carrier’s positions in this case. Indeed, given the circumstances involved in this claim, it is unsurprising that the insurers might raise questions. Nevertheless, the specific issues in dispute suggest a level of flex in the interplay between the primary and excess layers that many policyholders would find disconcerting.

Special thanks to Michael Early for sending along a copy of the opinion. I hasten to add that the views and opinions expressed in this post are exclusively my own.

My recent post discussing whether Phillip Bennett's use of the D&O insurance proceeds was an appropriate factor in his criminal sentencing can be found here. My prior post regarding the D&O insurance implications of Bennett's cooperation with the class action plaintiffs can be found here.

What Awaits Those Who Spurn Berkshire: A June 25, 2008 Bloomberg article (here) reports that while recently addressing a group of Toronto business executives, Warren Buffett was asked what makes people want to sell their companies to Berkshire. Buffett reportedly said that he tells a prospective seller to think of their company as a work of art:

You can sell it to Berkshire and we’ll put it in the Metropolitan Museum; it’ll have a wing all by itself; it’ll be there forever. Or you can sell it to some porn shop operator, and he’ll take the painting and he’ll make the boobs a little bigger and he’ll stick it in the window, and some other guy will come along in a raincoat, and he’ll buy it.

And Finally: If you have not yet seen this amazing catch by the Fresno Grizzlies’ ball girl, you have to watch this video. It is truly marvelous. [UPDATE: I have to add that a reader advised me that the video may be a hoax, refer here -- alas. It is still an awsome video.]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In prior posts, I have examined the increasing importance of anticorruption efforts and their significance for purposes of corporate governance. But a recent report by a global watchdog group suggests that not all governments are actively enforcing their anticorruption commitments, with potentially serious consequences for the developing world.

Transparency International describes itself as a “global civil society organization leading the fight against corruption.” Among other things, the group issues an annual progress report on the enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials.

On June 24, 2008, the group issued its 2008 Progress Report (here), which states that there has been a “dangerous stalemate on enforcement” and that “less than half” of the OECD Convention signatories “are living up to their commitments.” The report further states that while there has been “significant enforcement by 16 governments,” there is “little or no enforcement by 18 governments.”

The watchdog group is particularly worried about the “mixed message” that these uneven enforcement efforts may be sending. One commentator for the group is quoted as saying that “strong enforcement action against Siemens signaled to German business that foreign bribery will no longer be tolerated. But the backtracking of other countries, including the UK’s termination of an investigation into BAE Systems’ deals in Saudi Arabia, reinforces doubts about government commitment to enforce the Convention.”

The report leave no doubt about the importance of anticompetitive enforcement; as the report states, “compliance by signatory states is critical in draining the supply of bribe money that distorts public decision making in some of the world’s poorest states, with disastrous consequences for their citizens.”

My most recent post discussing the BAE Systems investigation can be found here, and my most recent post discussing the Siemens investigation can be found here.

Hat tip to the SOX First blog (here) for the link to the Transparency International report.

Siemens might not only have problems with the anticorruption laws, but also with its complexion, according to a June 24, 2008 Financial Times article reporting on comments from Siemens' current head, in an article entitled "Siemens is 'too white, German and male'" (here).

Another Options Backdating Securities Class Action Settlement: On June 24, 2008, Brooks Automation announced (here) that it had settled the securities class action lawsuit that was pending against the company and certain of its directors and officers. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit had previously been denied, as I discussed in a prior post, here. The case settled for $7.75 million dollars, all of which is to be paid by the company’s liability insurance carrier.

In any event, I have added the Brooks Automation settlement to my table of options backdating-related lawsuit dismissals, denials and settlements, which can be accessed here.

“Aggregator” Standing: Ordinarily this blog would not pause to comment on a “justiciability” case, at least one outside the context of directors and officers liability. But we found some of the commentary about the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 23, 2008 decision in Sprint Communications v. APCC Services (here) particularly interesting, and we thought we would pass it along for the benefit of those readers as interested as we are in procedural and jurisdictional matters.

George Washington University Law Professor Jon Siegel has a post on his blog Law Prof on the Loose (here) discussing the decision and the question whether “aggregators” who compiled the claims of payphone operators against long-distance carriers can demonstrate a sufficient injury to have standing to sue. The Supreme Court decided that they do. Siegel’s post does an interesting and humorous job explaining the case, the issues, and the decision, and he also explores the interplay between the majority and dissenting opinions. Read and enjoy.

Attention Deficit: We all suffered through those undergrad classes that seemed like they would never end, but the Chronicle of Higher Education has a June 20, 2008 article entitled “Short and Sweet: Technology Shrinks the Lecture”(here) reporting that after all these years, academia may finally be doing something about it.

Apparently, many Profs who have made their living droning on and on have finally seen themselves on video, as part of the effort to put their lectures on line. Appropriately enough, the experience seems to have been a wake-up call for many professors. As one Prof observed, “You wanted to kill yourself after about 20 minutes.” (I am not sure, but I think that particular Prof may have taught my Econ 101 class.)

So as part of their transition to online teaching, many professors are breaking their sessions into 20-minute segments. I guess the 20 minute time frame was selected to minimize the number of boredom-induced suicides.

At least some of the professors have managed to make the mental leap: “Shorter may work better in the classroom, too.” Tragically, this breakthrough comes too late to benefit the current generation, but at least our children and grandchildren can hope for a better tomorrow.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, Towers Perrin released its report of the firm’s 2007 Survey of Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Purchasing Trends, which can be accessed here. The firm’s annual survey report is widely read throughout the D&O insurance industry, and is generally viewed as an important information resource. Every year, the survey report is full of interesting observations, and this year’s version is no exception. The report merits reading at length and in full.

But while the survey report is widely read, I don’t know if the survey’s limitations are always fully understood or appreciated.

The report itself expressly acknowledges that it is based on a “self-selecting non-probability sample” The significance of this fact is briefly explained in the final two sentences at the bottom of the report’s preface page, where the report states that:

A non-probability sample is one in which respondents choose – or are selected – to participate. Such a sample is therefore not random. Because not all potential respondents are equally likely to participate, survey biases must be considered when interpreting results.

It is this latter point – that is, that “survey biases” must be considered when interpreting the survey’s results – that is all too often overlooked when the survey’s results are cited.

Let me just say that in referring to “bias” here, I am not in any way criticizing the report or its authors. The word “bias” as commonly understood has a negative connotation, but in this context, the word bias simply represents a mathematical property. But while the word bias should not suggest any negative connotations here, it should also be understood that, as stated in Wikipedia (here), “a biased sample causes problems because any statistic computed from that sample has the potential to be consistently erroneous.”

The survey results that most clearly reflect the sample bias are in the report’s discussion of what it calls “broker rankings.” As a footnote makes clear, the table relates solely to retail brokers, and does not contain any information about wholesale brokers. But even with respect to retail brokers, the table on which the “ranking” is based shows that over 88% of the survey responses relate to just four brokerages. Nor are these four survey-dominant brokerages the nationwide industry giants – to the contrary, these four participants would more accurately be described as strong regional players with an important presence in their respective geographic regions. The three largest nationwide industry giants meanwhile are represented collectively in only about 1.2% of responses.

My observations here should not in any way be taken as a criticism of these four survey-predominating brokerages. I will stipulate that they are in fact strong and significant industry participants. But no informed person actually thinks they are the four largest D&O brokers in the country. They are undeniably the leading firms in getting their clients to complete the Towers Perrin survey. Again, no criticism here; I salute their enterprising spirit in achieving this result. However, no one should confuse the survey “ranking” with an actual market share ranking.

I emphasize this aspect of the survey report because the bias in the broker participation population has pervasive effects throughout the entire report. For example, the four survey-predominant brokerages all have portfolios that are heavily weighted toward the technology and life sciences industries. Not too surprisingly, therefore, the two industry groups most heavily represented among both public and private company survey participants are “Technology” and “Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals.” These two industry groups together represent about half of both public and private company survey participants.

Obviously, this heavy concentration of survey participants in just these two industry groups does not correspond to the economy as a whole. But this industry concentration – which is a direct result of the concentration of the survey population in the portfolios of a small handful of brokerages – has very significant ramifications for the report’s other findings. The report itself expressly recognizes this in the portion where it discusses the distribution of survey respondents’ primary insurance among the various leading carriers. The report's analysis recognizes that the distribution of primary insurers is directly affected by the industry distribution, and the report examines this effect in detail.

But while the report examines in the impact of the survey population industry distribution on the distribution of business among primary insurers, the report does not elsewhere make this analysis. For example, the report does not similarly consider whether or not the industry concentration is relevant to the distribution of business among excess carriers, nor does it consider the possible impact of the concentration of the survey population on the other findings in the report.

I emphasize these points because I think they show a couple of important things. First, not only is the survey population concentrated into the portfolios of just a small handful of brokers, but this concentration has important implications for the rest of the report. It clearly affects, for example, the industry concentration of the survey population, which in turn affects the reported distribution of primary insurance among the various carriers.

These apparent effects raise the question whether the concentration of the survey population has similar effects on the other areas examined in the survey report. While the impact of the population concentration is most self-evident in the industry distribution, it is more difficult to tell from the report whether the other components of the report’s findings are similarly affected by the survey population’s concentration in the portfolios of just a very small handful of brokers.

It is a fair observation that Towers Perrin makes survey involvement available to all industry participants, not just the four survey-predominant firms. It is also a fair observation that if survey involvement were more widespread, many of the concerns noted above might be alleviated. But what has happened is that a few brokerage firms have clearly made their clients’ participation in the survey a top priority, while other brokerage firms have obviously decided to take a different approach, for reasons that one might speculate are related.

None of this is meant as a criticism of Towers Perrin, which should be saluted for performing the survey and distributing the survey report without charge. Moreover, Towers Perrin itself acknowledges that there may be biases arising from the survey population distribution. So I don’t mean to criticize Towers Perrin, or anyone else for that matter. Rather, my analysis here is presented as a petition to all industry participants that in using the survey data, they should explicitly recognize and acknowledge the sample bias limitations inherent in the report. In particular, no one should try to make the survey results represent anything more than they actually do, particularly with respect to the concentrations noted above.

The Option Backdating Case Resolution Scorecard: Over at the Securities Litigation Watch, Adam Savett has prepared an updated options backdating case resolution scorecard, which can be accessed here. Savett has a number of interesting observations about case dismissals and the speed of case resolution. The D&O Diary’s own scorecard of options backdating lawsuit dismissals, denials and settlement can be accessed here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If the facts don’t fit, you must remit. That seems to be the view of an increasing number of companies, as they have adopted provisions requiring repayment of executive compensation found to have been based on incorrect financial statements.

The concept of compensation clawbacks was actually built into the Sarbanes Oxley Act. Section 304 requires CFOs and CEOs to reimburse their companies for incentive compensation and stock sales profits if the financial statements for that year are restated and the restatement is due to “misconduct.”

According to a June 2008 report (here) from the Corporate Library, an increasing number of companies have adopted their own clawback provisions, “either as part of the rules of an incentive plan, as governance policy, or simply as a board statement of intent.”

In its prior 2003 review, the Corporate Library had found that just 14 companies had adopted clawback provisions. But in its June 2008 survey, the report found that 295 of the 2,121 companies examined had “disclosed the adoption and implementation of a clawback provision of one kind or another.”

The survey found that the provisions vary from company to company, but could generally be classified as either “performance based” (if the provision applies to all executives who received an incentive payment of some kind based on incorrect financial) and “fraud based” (if it applies only to those executives who have engaged in fraudulent activity or misconduct that has caused a restatement). The survey found that 44.4% of the clawback provisions were “fraud-based” and 39% were “performance based.” An additional 16.6% of the provisions could not be classified.

The report cites several examples of the clawback provisions and even notes one example, involving Warnaco, in which a clawback has already occurred. The company reported in this year’s proxy statement (here, see page 21) that its compensation committee had cut the incentive pay for three executives in 2006 by a total of $120,000. The reduction occurred after the company restated its 2005 financial results due to certain accounting errors and irregularities.

These kinds of provisions have the support of various governance groups. As the June 8, 2008 New York Times stated in an article discussing the Corporate Library report (here), “why should executives keep compensation if it is discovered later that benchmarks were unmet?”

Not only do these kinds of provisions address basic principles of pay equity; they may also have a deterrent effect as well. Indeed, a June 4, 2008 CFO.com article entitled “Clawbacks Claw Their Way Into Corporate Strategy” (here), comments that “the emergence of clawbacks could be one factor in the recent decline in the number of financial restatements.” (For further background regarding the declining number of restatements, refer here.)

The possibility of a compensation clawback is not the only consequences that could affect executives at restating companies. A March 2008 study by Juan Manual Sanchez and Adi Masli of the University of Arkansas Sam M. Walton School of Business, Denton Collins of Texas Tech University, and Austin Reitenga of the University of Alabama entitled “Earnings Restatements, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Disciplining of Chief Financial Officers” (here) found not only that companies restating earnings “have higher rates of involuntary CFO turnover,” but that CFOs of restating companies “face stiff labor market penalties.”

The authors looked at 167 restating companies and then matched them with a control company of comparable industry, size and age. The authors looked for instances where CFOs left the restating company within two years of the restatement. They then tracked the CFOs for four years to determine their subsequent employment.

The authors found “higher CFO turnover rates following restatements in both the pre- and post-SOX periods, which implies that governance mechanisms served to identify and discipline CFOs implicated in the restatements in both periods.”

The authors also found that “former CFOs of restatement firms are less likely to find a position with a job title that is comparable to their prior CFO position, less likely to find employment in a publicly traded company, or less likely to find a comparable position in a public firm.”

Finally, the authors found that “executives terminated in the post-SOX period appear to suffer greater reputational/labor-market penalties compared to the pre-SOX period, suggesting that firms are less willing in the post-SOX period to hire a former CFO with a tarnished reputation. This appears to be consistent with the intent of the legislation to increase executive accountability.”

With all the disincentives for bad behavior, one might optimistically hope that the sins of the past will not recur. Unfortunately, certain aspects of the current credit crisis arguably belie that hope. Nevertheless, one useful takeaway from this analysis is that the presence of corporate clawbacks could provide a deterrent for bad behavior, and could be a positive risk assessment factor.

Hat tip to the CFO.com for the reference to the academics research paper about career consequences for CFOs of restating companies.

Update on a Backdating Settlement That Went Awry: In a prior post (here), I discussed the recent opinion in which Judge Alsup used harsh language in rejecting the Zoran options backdating-related derivative lawsuit settlement. Among other things, Judge Zoran questioned the parties’ representations of the settlement’s value, and questioned the absence of any cash payment to the corporation.

According to a June 9, 2008 Forbes article entitled “Fee Fixers” (here), “it turns out that Alsup was on to something.” According to the article, on May 29, the lawyers resubmitted the settlement, but this time, the settlement included $3.4 million in cash, $3 million from Zoran’s insurance company and $395,000 from Zoran’s CEO and another executive. The article noted that “for having done such a good job,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers “have requested $1.5 million in fees and expenses, $300,000 more that the first time around.”

According to the company’s June 12, 2008 press release (here), Judge Alsup has granted preliminary approval to the settlement. The rejiggered settlement may have passed judicial muster. But let’s be explicit about what the sequence of events really consists of.  Basically, and other than with respect to the $395,000 payment, the insurance company is being asked to pony up the additional $3 million, and undoubtedly will also be called upon to pay the additional increment in the plaintiffs’ fees, as well as all of the additional defense expense incurred after the first settlement cratered. Perhaps there is nothing remarkable in all of this. But at some point, you really do start to wonder about the social utility of all of this activity. It is enough to make anybody cynical.

Hat tip to the 10b5-Daily (here) for the link to the Forbes article. Special thanks to Zusha Ellinson of The Recorder for the link to the Zoran press release.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a prior post (here), I commented on former Refco CEO Phillip Bennett’s extraordinary cooperation with the Refco class action plaintiffs, following his entry of a guilty plea in the criminal case against him. As might have been anticipated, Bennett is hoping that his cooperation with the class plaintiffs, as well as the Bankruptcy Trustee, will win him leniency in his June 19, 2008 criminal sentencing. The government opposes leniency, arguing in reliance upon, among other things, Bennett’s acceptance of D&O insurance proceeds to pay his defense expenses.

In February 2008, Bennett entered a guilty plea, without a plea agreement, to all 20 counts against him, including conspiracy, securities fraud, filing of false statements, wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering and lying to Refco’s auditors. He faces a statutory maximum of 315 years’ imprisonment.

In Bennett’s June 1, 2008 sentencing memorandum (here), which was made public on June 12, his lawyers urged the judge to impose a sentence “for a term of years well short of the remainder of Mr. Bennett’s life.” His lawyers cited, among other reasons supposedly warranting leniency, that Bennett has “offered his cooperation to both the Litigation Trustee of the Refco Estate and the Refco Civil Class Action Plaintiffs, in their efforts to return hundreds of dollars to those who lost money in the Refco bankruptcy.” His lawyers further argued that his cooperation in those cases is “an indication of the extent to which Mr. Bennett has sought to make amends for the harm he has caused, and further reason to impose a sentence well below an actual or de facto term of life in prison.”

In its June 6, 2008 response (here), also made public on June 12, the government urged that “given the duration and intensity of the fraud, Bennett should receive no leniency.” In urging the maximum, the government pulled out all rhetorical stops; the government argued:

Bennett’s willful frauds on Refco’s investors, purchasers, customers, counterparties, banks, the public and others resulted in countless victims being defrauded of billions of dollars, causing uncompensated losses, even after the dissolution of Refco’s assets and large legal settlements of well over $1.5 billion, and of course drove Refco into bankruptcy. The defendant’s criminal conduct, motivated by greed that drove him to lie and scheme in ways previously unimaginable, brought him wealth that has scarcely been seen before in a … fraud case, launching Bennett into the rarefied air of a billionaire. In terms of scope, length, sophistication, harm, and criminal benefit, Bennett stands on a plateau of criminality that frankly makes comparisons difficult. Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that an appropriately stiff term of imprisonment, consistent with the sentences imposed in the similar cases discussed above, should be imposed in order to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just and fair punishment, and deter potential corporate criminals.

In this same vein, the government showed little respect for Bennett’s plea for leniency made in reliance on his cooperation with the civil claimants (or at least “some” of the civil claimants, as the government emphasizes). The government said only that while the Court is not prohibited from considering such putative cooperation, “that does not mean that the Court necessarily should give the defendant credit for such cooperation.”

Among other reasons why it contends Bennett should received no leniency, the government specifically argued that “rather than limit the impact of his fraud, he knowingly accepted millions of dollars from Refco’s directors and officers insurance (the premiums for which, of course, were paid with fraud proceeds) to pay his legal bills, money that Bennett knew he had no right to claim.” The government added in a footnote that Bennett was also aware that in light of the government’s asset forfeiture case “there would be no money left to repay the insurance company upon his conviction. In substance, at the same time that Bennett was supposedly accepting full responsibility for his actions, he was in fact, taking millions of dollars from insurance companies under false pretenses. Notably, Bennett has not offered to cooperate with these civil litigants.”

Bennett may well deserve the maximum sentence as a result of his wrongdoing. The government may persuasively argue that Bennett only belatedly acknowledged his guilt, and that his late-arriving contrition ought not to be the basis of leniency, particularly where the delay exacerbated the harm he caused. But I wonder about the government’s attempt to bootstrap this argument by citing Bennett’s use of the D&O insurance proceeds to finance his defense.  

Let me just say as a preliminary matter that in expressing the views below, I am expressing no opinions about the carriers’ rights or interests. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of Refco’s D&O insurance coverage and none of the opinions below should be taken as opinion about Refco’s carriers’ coverage positions in this case. The carriers certainly  have their own grievances based on these circumstances, but I am not addressing those grievances here.  My opinions here relate solely to the government’s arguments against leniency based on Bennett’s use of the D&O policy proceeds.

My first concern with the government’s argument is the general principle it represents. The government may be justified in arguing that Bennett knew all along that his conduct was fraudulent. But take the principle on which the government seeks to rely outside the context of this specific case. Defending against a criminal charge is extraordinarily expensive, and one of the purposes of D&O insurance is to provide for the advancement of post-indictment criminal defense expense. For many criminally accused corporate officials, particularly those whose former company is bankrupt, the D&O insurance may be their only means of defending themselves. An insured forced to rely on this last line of defense should not be have to be concerned that accepting these contractual rights will put them at hazard that it might later be used against them if they ultimately face a criminal sentencing.

My second concern is that the circumstances Bennett’s case presents arguably are a product of the structure of D&O policies. The policies of course preclude coverage for loss based on criminal misconduct. But at the same time, the policies provide for the advancement of post-indictment criminal defense expense, subject only to an unsecured obligation to repay in the event a coverage preclusion is triggered.

In the course of events, it is inevitable that some insurance proceeds will be advanced in defense of insureds whose guilt is later established. The carrier can then seek to recover the advanced expense, which the insured is obliged to repay. But as an unsecured creditor, the carrier may not be able to recoup its costs in many instances. Bennett may well have known he would never be able to repay the amounts advanced, but I suspect that most criminal defendants know that, if called upon, they too could never hope to repay the amounts advanced in their defense. If awareness of an inability to repay is bar to seeking leniency, the ability to seek leniency would be unavailable to many corporate criminal defendants.

Carriers could refuse to cover criminal defense expenses or require more security before advancing criminal defense expense. Of course, any carrier trying to do either of these things would sell no more policies. D&O policies are structured as they are because that is what the marketplace requires for the policies to be commercially competitive. Presumably the carriers believe they are adequately compensated for the risks inherent in the structure.

The government may well be justified overall in arguing that Bennett should receive the maximum sentence. But I wonder: should an insurance outcome made possible as a result of the requirements of commercial competition really serve as a factor in the length of someone’s criminal sentence?

I suspect that some readers may have strong views on this topic. I hope readers will be willing to publish their views using the blog’s comment feature.

Hat tip to the White Collar Crime Prof Blog (here) for the links to the sentencing memoranda.

Speakers’ Corner: On June 17, 2008, I will be in Quebec City at the spring meeting of the Casualty Actuarial Society, speaking on a panel entitled “Subprime Issues for D&O.” The conference sessions agenda can be found here. My fellow panelists include Stephanie Plancich of NERA Economic Consulting and David Bradford of Advisen.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Lots has been written, even on The D&O Diary (most recently here), about the way the world is adjusting to investors’ growing desire to hold management accountable. At the same time, U.S. courts have proven increasingly reluctant to project the remedies available under its securities laws into situations where there is an insufficient connection to the U.S. (as discussed here).

But the lawsuit filed on June 12, 2008 against the European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. (EADS) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York takes all of that and puts in into a truly interesting and potentially combustible mix   – the plaintiffs are U.S. citizens, but they exclusively bought their shares in this foreign-domiciled company outside the U.S. The company’s shares do not trade on any U.S. exchange.

The company and the individual defendants, all current and former directors and officers of EADS, are domiciled outside the U.S. EADS is a Netherlands company with its principle place of business in The Netherlands. This is a company that is foreign to the U.S. in every sense of the word and only the investor plaintiffs themselves have any connection to the U.S.

If there were ever a case to test the outer limits for the availability of U.S. courts for remedies under the U.S. securities laws, this case would appear to be the one.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys’ June 12, 2008 press release can be found here. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

As described in the press release, the complaint alleges that

EADS falsely assured the investing public that it would overcome the technical problems in the production of the Company’s Airbus A380 commercial jets (“A380”) and it would be able to meet its year-end delivery deadlines. Moreover, the Company issued numerous positive statements which described the Company’s increasing financial performance. According to the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that the Company was experiencing insurmountable delays in the manufacture of the A380 commercial jet; (ii) that the Company would be required to compensate its customers for these delays through discounts and certain customers would likely be canceling their entire orders; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s ability to receive new contract awards from commercial airliners and its ability to reap future revenues at the levels that it was projecting would be in serious doubt.

On June 13, 2006, the Company announced that its Airbus subsidiary was having production problems with the A380 commercial jet, which would cause a significant delay in delivery to its customers. The Company also issued a profit warning beyond 2006 which was attributable to these delays and announced that it anticipated annual shortfalls of €500 million, without taking into account possible contract terminations from existing customers.

What makes this case interesting is not the specific factual allegations, which, at least by U.S. standards, are not all that remarkable. What makes this case interesting is the putative class on whose behalf the claim is brought. According to the press release, the lawsuit is brought on behalf of “U.S. citizens who purchased the publicly traded stock of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. (“EADS” or the “Company”) on the Frankfurt (Frankfurt: EAD.F), Madrid (Mercado Continuo: EAD.MC) and/or Paris (Paris: EAD.PA) stock exchanges between January 17, 2005 and June 13, 2006, inclusive.”

There are several noteworthy points about this class description. First and foremost, the plaintiffs’ lawyers do not purport to represent foreign investors who brought their shares abroad, so they are consciously avoiding the so-called f-cubed litigant problem (foreign domiciled investors who bought their shares in a foreign domiciled company on a foreign exchange). But the class description underscores the fact that this company’s shares were not traded on a U.S. exchange. They were only traded on foreign exchanges.

This class description raises, in a fairly dramatic way, the ultimate question of how broadly the remedies available under the U.S. securities laws should reach. Do they reach even to a foreign company whose shares do not trade at all in the U.S?

The traditional standards, looking to whether there was (or were) fraudulent conduct or the effects of fraudulent conduct in the U.S., might post significant hurdles for the court to exercise jurisdiction in this case, except that those standards were developed to aid court to determine whether or not to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of investors domiciled outside the U.S. Courts have generally not hesitated to exercise jurisdiction, even against foreign domiciled companies, on behalf of U.S. citizens. But will the court be willing to exercise jurisdiction against a foreign-domiciled company whose shares do not trade in the U.S.?

There may well be prior cases that raise this particular set of issues, and if so I hope readers will let me know. To my knowledge this is a new angle on the perennial set of jurisdictional questions surrounding securities claims against foreign domiciled companies. If the U.S. court were to exercise subject matter jurisdiction here, it would in effect represent a projection of U.S court jurisdiction and U.S. style securities litigation to any company anywhere, as long as there is a U.S.-based investor. Maybe a court here will go for that, but it seems like a stretch to me.

Is there any company anywhere in the world that does not have U.S.-based investors? Should the mere presence of those investors in the U.S. courts allow U.S courts to exercise jurisdiction over all those companies, no matter where they are located and where their shares trade?

Finally, there is also the issue of personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants, and perhaps even over the corporate defendant. Have the defendants purposely availed themselves of the jurisdiction or otherwise established minimum contact with the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over them comports with traditional notions of substantial justice and due process?

There probably are also some very interesting questions here about the basic merits of the claim. But those questions may or may not ever matter. The first innings of this game are going to be the ones to watch. Make sure you have your beer and your hot dog and that you are in your seat for the national anthem, because this game is going to rock and roll from the very first pitch.

UPDATE: On June 13, 2008, a different plaintiffs' firm apparently initiated a separate lawsuit against EADS on behalf of a different plaintiffs' class. According to the firm's press release (refer here), this newest lawsuit "seeks to recover damages on behalf of all U.S. and non-U.S. purchasers of the publicly traded securities of EADS during the Class Period." The new lawsuit also names as defendants Lagardere and Daimler AG, EADS's largest shareholders. This second lawsuit presents faces even more significant jurisdictional barriers, since it purports to represent the so-called f-cubed claimants. Clearly these complaints are testing outer jurisdictional boundaries on the availability of remedies under the U.S. seecurities laws.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this week when I posted my list of subprime lawsuits dismissal motion grants and denials (here), I was hoping the publication would encourage readers to let me know about case dispositions of which I was previously unaware. My strategy worked, because a loyal reader who prefers anonymity responded to my post by alerting me to the May 19, 2008 opinion (here) in the subprime-related securities class action lawsuit involving Standard Pacific. Because the court’s opinion is particularly thorough, it merits a detailed review.

Standard Pacific is a California-based residential construction company that concentrated in recent years on the formerly go-go growth areas of California, Florida, Texas and Nevada. As s result of the residential real estate slump, the company’s sales activity declined in 2006 and 2007. Plaintiff shareholders initiated a securities class action lawsuit against two Standard Pacific executives in August 2007.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented Standard Pacific’s ability to open new, successful communities; misled the public about the demand for Standard Pacific homes; and lied about the company’s ability to continue its historically strong earning growth. Further background regarding the lawsuit can be found here.

In a May 19, 2008 opinion, Judge Margaret M. Morrow of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs’ 45 days’ leave to amend.

The defendants first argued that the plaintiffs’ complaint failed to satisfy the PSLRA’s pleading requirements because it is a “classic example of prohibited puzzle-pleading,” in that it contains extensive block quotations from the company’s class period statements “without specifying the particular statements that are false and misleading.”

The plaintiffs sought to address this issue in their reply papers, but the court found that “the organization the plaintiffs offer in their opposition brief does not cure the deficiencies in the complaint. To the contrary, it highlights plaintiffs’ failures to plead defendants’ purportedly false and misleading statements with specificity as required by the PSLRA,” and accordingly the court granted the motion to dismiss, with leave to amend.

The defendants also moved to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled scienter. The plaintiffs alleged, based on the confidential witness information, that defendants misled investors because they continued to cite sales information in reliance on internal reports they supposedly knew to be inaccurate. Defendants contended that, to the contrary, they informed investors that the company was experiencing sales declines, and that “the crux of plaintiffs’ fraud claim is not that the defendants flatly misrepresented the company’s performance but that they were deliberately reckless because the failed to lower their projections enough.”

The court found that

the fact that defendants reduced earnings and home delivery guidance cuts against plaintiffs’ claim that defendants acted with fraudulent intent. As no facts are pled supporting an inference that defendants selected the level of reductions they announced fraudulently or with deliberate recklessness, the complaint suggests a plausible nonculpable explanation for defendants’ conduct…. Taken as a whole…plaintiffs’ allegations do not give rise to a “strong inference” that at the time they made the statements, defendants knew or should have known that the state of affairs was much worse than they had acknowledged publicly….In effect, by arguing that defendants’ predictions and forecasts were not low enough, plaintiffs improperly attempt to allege “fraud by hindsight.”

The court similarly rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to rely on the defendants’ certifications of the company’s SEC filings.

The dismissal, even though it is without prejudice, is still significant. First, the opinion is very detailed and thorough, which could carry some weight in other subprime securities cases, particularly the numerous other cases pending in the Central District of California.

Second, many of the other subprime complaints arguable share the “puzzle pleading” defect of the complaint in this case – all too often, the complaints in these subprime cases consist of block quotations from the defendants company’s disclosure documents, without direct connections specifying what about the disclosure the plaintiffs allege is false and misleading, and in what way the statements are false and misleading.

Third, many of the companies named in subprime securities lawsuits, like Standard Pacific, are accused not of failing to acknowledge problems but of failing to recognize the problems enough. To the extent other courts view these pleadings with the same level of skepticism as Judge Morrow, the complaints could face some formidable challenges at the motion to dismiss stage.

In any event, I have added the Standard Pacific opinion to the list of subprime lawsuit dismissal motion grants and denials. I hope other readers will let me know of any other subprime lawsuit dismissal motion rulings of which they are aware, so that the list can be as complete as possible.

Special thanks to the anonymous loyal reader for alerting me to the Standard Pacific opinion.

Another Option ARM Lawsuit: In a different post earlier this week (here), I noted the lawsuits that had been filed up to that point relating to Option ARM mortgages, and I suggested the likelihood that there would be further lawsuits relating to Option ARMs. In a quick confirmation of my prediction, on June 11, 2008, plaintiffs’ counsel initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the Central District of California against IndyMac Bancorp and certain of its directors and officers. A copy of the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ June 11 press release can be found here. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

According to the press release, the complaint alleges that

defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. Specifically, defendants downplayed and concealed IndyMac’s growing exposure to non-performing assets, particularly loans in its pay-option adjustable-rate mortgage (“Option ARM”) and homebuilder construction portfolios, and made numerous positive representations regarding the Company’s capital position to alleviate investors’ fears concerning the Company’s capital erosion. As a result of defendants’ false statements, IndyMac stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

It is important to note that IndyMac had previously been sued in a subprime-related securities class action lawsuit, the background regarding which can be found here. In concluding that this latest lawsuit is sufficiently distinct from this prior lawsuit to represent a new lawsuit, I note the following: first, the class period of the prior lawsuit was May 4, 2006 to March 1, 2007, whereas the purported class period for the new lawsuit is from August 16, 2007 to May 12, 2008. In addition, the substantive allegations in the two lawsuits relate to different alleged misrepresentations. In particular, the prior lawsuit does not appear to relate to the companies representations regarding Options ARM mortgages or the company’s capital position.

Accordingly, I am recognizing this latest complaint as a new and separate filing. However, I encourage readers who may disagree to let me know of any circumstances that might militate in favor of a different conclusion.

I have added the new IndyMac lawsuit to my running tally of subprime and credit-crisis related securities lawsuits, which can be found here. With the addition of the new IndyMac lawsuit, the tally of subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuits now stands at 90, of which 50 have been filed in 2008.

Finally, it is worth noting that, as reflected in my list of subprime dismissal motions grants and denials referenced above that motion to dismiss have twice been granted with leave to amend in the prior IndyMac lawsuit.

More Subprime ERISA Lawsuits:  I have also added two subprime-related ERISA lawsuits to my running tally of subprime-related lawsuits.

First, in a June 11, 2008 press release (here), plaintiffs’ lawyers announced that they had initiated a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York under ERISA against Wachovia Corporation and various of its officers and administrators. According to the press release, the defendants allegedly violated their duties to participants in the Wachovia Savings Plan by “continuing to invest in and hold Wachovia stock despite the fact that they knew or should have known that Wachovia was not properly reporting its financial condition and was not disclosing significant problems which had the effect of inflating the value of Company stock.”

Second, on May 9. 2008, plaintiffs’’ counsel initiated a lawsuit in the Western District of Tennessee on behalf of past and present employees of First Horizon National Corporation who participated in the First Horizon Savings Plan. A copy of the complaint can be found here. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty by requiring plan participants to invest in First Horizon shares, which the plaintiffs contend was “imprudent… because First Horizon was not fairly and accurately disclosing the risks and likely consequences of a number of its banking practices such that the Plan was purchasing shares of First Horizon Stock at an inflated price.” Among the undisclosed risks alleged is the company’s exposure to subprime and Alt-A mortgages.

I have added the Wachovia and First Horizon ERISA lawsuits to my running tally of subprime-related ERISA lawsuits, which can be found here. With the addition of the new ERISA lawsuit, the tally of subprime-related ERISA lawsuits now stands at 17

Special thanks to a loyal reader for identifying the new ERISA lawsuits.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

In prior posts (most recently here), I have discussed the fact that life sciences companies remain a favored target of the plaintiffs’ securities bar. A June 2008 memorandum by Michael Kichline and David Kotler of the Dechert law firm entitled “Dechert Survey of Securities Fraud Class Actions Brought Against Life Sciences Companies”  (here) takes a closer look at the 2007 life sciences securities lawsuits and concludes that “life sciences companies remain firmly in the crosshairs of the plaintiffs’ securities bar.”

The authors note that the 25 securities class action lawsuits filed in 2007 against life sciences companies represents a 64% increase over the 16 filed the preceding year, and also represents 14% of the 175 total securities lawsuits filed in 2007. (My own numerical analysis of the 2007 life sciences lawsuits, which can be found here, differs slightly, but only in the details, not the direction, and the difference undoubtedly is due to the narrow definition of “life sciences” I used in my analysis.)

The authors also have a number of interesting observations about the 2007 life sciences lawsuits, including the fact that “life sciences companies with the greatest market capital -- more than $10 billion – were sued at the same rate as companies with less than $250 million.”

The authors also note that the securities lawsuit allegations against life sciences companies “continue to span the product life cycle” and that many of the companies sued 2007 were sued “based on information they communicated, or failed to communicate, to the public about a drug’s efficacy, safety, and/or the results of the FDA approval process.”

One particularly interesting observation in the study is that “research personnel were frequently named as defendants,” and specifically that in five cases, the plaintiffs alleged that because “key research personnel had a high level position with the company and access to internal information, they both knew and failed to disclose the alleged adverse non-public information.”

The authors predict that life sciences companies will continue to be the targets of securities fraud lawsuits, noting that “the structural factors that lead plaintiffs’ lawyers to target life sciences companies – volatile stock prices and a drug or device product life cycle fraught with potential for adverse and unpredictable events, such as a negative clinical trial result of FDA decisions – remain challenging, especially in the current stock market and regulatory environment.” The authors predict that plaintiffs’ counsel will continue to strive to find new theories. The authors cite as an example the likelihood that “more securities lawsuits will be premised on off-label communication or sales.”

The survey, which concludes with practical risk minimization suggestions, is quite good and merits reading at length and in full.

While I concur in all of the authors’ views, I think that in order to fully appreciate life sciences companies’ securities litigation exposure, it is important to consider not only the lawsuit filings, but also the case dispositions. Life sciences companies may be frequent lawsuit targets, but that does not mean that all or even most of the lawsuits are meritorious.

As I have noted in prior posts (most recently here), many of the securities lawsuits filed against life sciences companies are dismissed. Indeed, many of the large life sciences companies that have been targeted in securities suits in recent months – including, for example, Guidant, Pfizer and Astra Zeneca – have successfully managed to get the cases dismissed. And it is not just the larger companies that have prevailed; smaller companies, such as, for example, Micrus Endovascular (which recently prevailed on its motion to dismiss, about which refer here), have also prevailed on their dismissal motions.

To be sure, there have also been many settlements of life sciences securities lawsuits, some of which have been quite significant. But overall life sciences securities lawsuits have not always been as productive for the plaintiffs’ lawyers as might be suggested by the sheer numbers of filings.

I do agree that the volatility of life sciences companies’ share price and the companies’ susceptibility to product-driven dislocations will continue to attract the unwanted attention of the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The good news for these companies is that they have potentially effective defenses available and they may be able to use these defenses to stave off the litigation assault. The risk protection steps suggested in the authors’ memorandum are particularly good starting points for preparing these defenses.

Special thanks to David Kotler of the Dechert firm for providing me with a copy of the life sciences securities litigation survey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The subprime and credit crisis-related litigation wave has come a long way since the first of the subprime lawsuits was filed in February 2007. Now that the litigation phenomenon is now nearly a year and a half old, the rulings on the motions to dismiss are finally starting to accumulate. It appears to be time for The D&O Diary to initiate the latest in its ongoing and ever-popular series of lists, this most recently created one to track the accumulated subprime and credit-crisis related lawsuit dismissals and dismissal motion denials.

The D&O Diary’s newly created list of subprime and credit crisis-related dismissals and motion denials can be found here. PLEASE NOTE that this document also lists all settlements of subprime and credit crisis related lawsuits as well

As befits the relatively early stages of most of this litigation, the list of case dispositions is, as of the time of the list’s initial creation, pretty sparse. I will endeavor to update the list as new dismissal motion rulings emerge, and wherever possible I will provide a link to the actual ruling. As I update the list, I will indicate at the top of the list the date of the list’s most recent revision.

The more complete the list is, the more useful it will be for everyone, so all readers are strongly invited and encouraged to let me know about any subprime and credit crisis related lawsuit dismissal motion rulings that are not already on the list.

As of the date of the creation of this post, I am not aware of any subprime or credit-crisis related lawsuit settlements. The settlements will emerge sooner or later, and when the do, I will created a supplemental document tracking the settlements.

Readers who may be unaware of the other lists that I am maintaining may be interested to know about the following lists:

1. The List of Subprime and Credit Crisis-Related Securities Class Action Lawsuit Filings (which may be accessed here).
2. The List of Subprime and Credit Crisis-Related Derivative Lawsuits (here).
3. The List of Options Backdating-Related Lawsuit Filings (here)
4. The List of Options Backdating-Related Dismissals, Denials and Settlements (here).
5. The List of Securities Class Action Opt-Out Settlements (here).

I am always interested in any additional information or correcting information that is required to make these lists more accurate or complete. I am also always interested in readers’ thoughts and comments, about these lists or anything else.

Welcome Back: Serial blogger Bruce Carton is back at it again, with his new blog, Unusual Activity, which can be found here. The blog describes itself as "The Securities Litigation and Enforcement Reporter."  Many readers will recall that Bruce is the founder and long-time author of the Securities Litigation Watch blog. Bruce more recently wrote the Best in Class blog. Everyone here welcomes Bruce back to the blogging circuit, and we look forward to reading his new blog.

Speakers's Corner: On June 19 and 20, 2008, I will be co-Chairing the Mealey's Subprime Mortgage & Insurance Coverage Litigation Conference at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon CIty, Virginia, with my good friend, Matt Jacobs, of Jenner & Block.

The agenda (which can be found here), includes many distinguished speakers and panelists, such as Andrew Carron of NERA Economic Consulting, Adel Turki of Cornerstone Research, Robert Rothman of the Lerach Coughlin firm, Dan Bailey of Bailey & Cavalieri, John McCarrick of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, David Hensler of Hogan & Hartson, and Mitchell Dolin of Covington & Burling.

Registration instructions and other intormation about the conference can be found here.

And Finally: If you have never heard of the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), then you will want to review the article yesterday's New York TImes (here) discussing the latest in academic anxieties. It used to be all publish or perish, but it is now all about the downloads and links. And you thought your job was competitive.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 As I have previously observed, the current credit crisis is about more than subprime loans. Among the other kinds of credit are so-called Option ARMs, which frequently involve prime borrowers. These loans are adjustable rate mortgages where the borrower has the option of paying less than the full amount of interest due, with the unpaid balance added to the principle (that is, the loan can negatively amortize). My prior post describing and discussing the nature of Option ARM loans can be found here.

This negative amortization payment feature of Option ARMs only makes sense (if at all) at a time of rising home prices. At a time of declining home values, it can quickly put the borrower in a position where they owe more than the value of their home. As unattractive as this position is, it can get worse when the interest rate adjusts upwards, leaving the borrower in a position of paying even more to stay in a home that is worth less than the mortgage debt.

Unsurprisingly, borrowers are having difficulties with Option ARM loans, which in turn is leading to problems for lenders with Option ARM portfolios. These problems in turn are leading to litigation.

The latest company to be sued in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of problems with Option ARM loans is Wachovia Corporation, which was sued, together with certain of its directors and officers, on June 6, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs’ lawyers’ June 9, 2008 press release about the lawsuit can be found here. The complaint can be found here. UPDATE: As correctly noted in the reader comment, this case is actually pending in the Northern District of California, rather than the Central District as original text incorrectly stated.

According to the press release, the complaint alleges that:

Defendants misled investors by falsely representing that Wachovia had strict and selective underwriting and loan origination practices and a conservative lending approach that set it apart from other lenders. Such reassurances were repeated by defendants throughout the Class Period in order to artificially support Wachovia's stock price in the midst of a weakening mortgage market. In response to increased market concern with the mortgage lending industry, and Wachovia's option ARMs in particular, Wachovia falsely represented that its loan underwriting practices were much better than at other banks and that this would allow it to prosper while lenders with less exacting standards and procedures would fare much worse. In reality, Wachovia's actual lending practices differed materially from the description of those practices in statements made to investors. The Company's ability to weather the deterioration in the real estate and credit markets was grossly exaggerated by Defendants, at precisely the worst time, when analysts began to ask tough questions. The Company, moreover, had inadequate loan loss reserves and falsely represented that its capital position was sufficient to fund its dividend.

Shortly after last assuring the market of its liquidity, the strength of its underwriting practices, and the adequacy of its reserves, Wachovia reported a surprise quarterly loss, undertook emergency measures to increase capital, and cut its dividend. On April 14, 2008, before the open of ordinary trading, Wachovia reported a loss of $350 million, or $0.20 per share, for the first quarter of 2008. The Company attributed the results to: (1) a $2.8 billion increase credit loss reserves, including $1.1 billion specifically for ``Pick-A-Pay'' reserve build, the lending program highly touted by the Company during the Class Period. The need to increase Pick-A-Pay reserves was attributed to Wachovia's adoption of a ``refined reserve modeling'' that resulted in ``higher than expected loss factors on Pick-a-Pay''; and (2) $2 billion in mark-to-market losses for mortgage backed securities, including a ``$729 million loss on unfunded leveraged finance commitments.'' In order to shore-up its capital, Wachovia announced the following steps: (1) reduce the dividend 41% to $0.375; and (2) plan to raise capital by $7-8 billion through public offerings.

Wachovia is only the latest company to become embroiled in securities litigation arising out of Option ARM problems. Companies previously sued in securities lawsuits involving Option ARM allegations include Washington Mutual (about which refer here) and Downey Financial (refer here). It seems highly unlikely that these companies will be the only ones to become involved in lawsuits involving these concerns.

Indeed, as bad as the situation involving Options ARMs may now appear, circumstances are likely to deteriorate in the months ahead. As discussed in the June 5, 2008 Business Week article entitled “The Next Real Estate Crisis” (here), foreclosures on Options ARMs have already tripled in the last year, but could further hasten as “monthly options recasts are expected to accelerate starting in April 2009, from $5 billion to a peak of about $10 billion in January 2010.” The Option ARM loan defaults “could accelerate next year even if subprime defaults subside.”

The possibility of further Option ARM related securities litigation seems likely.

In any event, I have added the new Wachovia case to my running tally of subprime and credit-crisis related securities class action lawsuits, which can be accessed here. The current tally now stands at 89, of which 49 have been filed in 2008.

It is probably worth noting that this new case is the third in which Wachovia has become involved as part of the current credit-crisis related litigation wave. In addition to the new lawsuit, Wachovia was previously sued in an auction rate securities lawsuit (refer here), and in a Prospectus Liability case arising out of the company’s offering of certain Trust Preferred Securities (about which refer here).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In prior posts (refer here), I have discussed the increasing reluctance of U.S. courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over securities claims against foreign-domiciled companies brought by foreign claimants who bought their shares on foreign exchanges (so-called “f-cubed” claimants).

In the most recent example of this, Judge Thomas Griesa of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in a June 3, 2008 opinion (here), granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of “f-cubed” claimants against AstraZeneca and certain of its directors and offices.

The complaint essentially alleges that Exanta, a pharmaceutical being develop by the AstraZeneca (a U.K.-based company) “was not as safe or effective as defendants’ public statements made it out to be.” The plaintiffs’ claimed that these statements inflated the company’s share price. Refer here for background regarding the lawsuit.

The outcome of the subject matter jurisdiction question was probably tipped in the court’s opening observation that “over 90% of the members of the putative class are foreigners who purchased their shares on foreign exchanges.”

The court reviewed the propriety of its exercise of jurisdiction over claims brought on behalf of these foreign shareholders, by considering whether or not there were sufficient allegations of U.S.-based conduct causing sufficient U.S.-based effects. The court found that while there were sufficient allegations of U.S.-based conduct, plaintiffs “do not allege facts in support of the second prong of the test – that the United States conduct ‘directly caused’ plaintiffs’ losses.”

The court said that in order to establish this requisite causal link, the plaintiffs must have “sufficiently alleged that the foreign purchasers relied on United States based conduct when deciding to acquire the stock”. In order to establish this kind of reliance, the plaintiffs urged the court in effect to adopt a global “fraud-on-the-market” theory, arguing that “it is illogical to suggest that the fraud-on-the-market theory applies within the United States but not outside of it.”

The court noted that other courts had rejected the global fraud-on-the-market theory, out of concerns that it would “extend the jurisdictional reach of the United States securities laws too far.” The court further noted that the Second Circuit had not yet provided guidance on whether the fraud-on-the-market theory should apply to foreign countries, and “in the absence of clear authority in favor of a global fraud-on-the-market theory, the court declines to adopt such a theory.” The court dismissed the claims of the foreign claimants based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The court further concluded that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged that two foreign-domiciled individual defendants had the requisite “minimum contacts” with the U.S. for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them.

Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently pled scienter, and dismissed the remaining claims on that basis. The court held that neither the allegations of insider trading nor the allegations relating to a secondary offering were sufficient to establish scienter.

The court further rejected the plaintiffs allegations that the defendants had consciously disregarded the truth, based on the court’s own review of the various disclosure documents on which the plaintiffs sought to rely. The court concluded that the plaintiffs “have not alleged anything to negate the idea that that defendants were attempting to develop a drug they thought beneficial and were do describing it to the public.” The court found that the plaintiffs had “not alleged an inference of scienter as compelling as the opposing inference.”

The fact that the case will not be going forward even as to the domestic shareholders reduces the impact of the court’s ruling to exclude the f-cubed claimants from the class. The dispersion of the class, with such an overwhelming percentage of f-cubed claimants in the purported class members may well have inclined the outcome on the jurisdictional issue in any event.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the most recently filed cases seem to be anticipating that courts are inclined to exclude these claimants from the putative class and increasingly are taking that into account in their initial pleadings. For example, as discussed here, when plaintiffs’ lawyers recently launched a U.S. securities lawsuit against Société Générale, they included in the purported class only U.S residents and investors who bought ADRs on U.S. exchanges. Their purported class by its own construction excludes foreign residents who bought shares on foreign exchanges.

The increasing exclusion of f-cubed litigants from U.S. securities class actions (whether voluntary or as a result of court action) is one of the reasons that interest in U.S.-style securities relief is increasing in other countries, as I discussed in a recent post (here).

In any event, the court’s dismissal of the AstraZeneca case also continues another trend, which is that while life sciences companies are frequently sued (compared to companies in most other categories), the cases filed against them are often dismissed, as I also discussed in a prior post (here)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the subprime crisis has unfolded, one of the recurring themes has been the conflicted role of the rating agencies. Last week’s announcement (here) of a negotiated resolution of the New York State regulatory investigation of the rating agencies reflects one aspect of the recurring questions surrounding the rating agencies’ role in the current crisis. These questions are likely to persist in light of the recent revelation (here) that Moody’s continued to assign mortgage-backed securities investment grade ratings despite a whistleblower’s alarm about potential problems with the ratings.

But while the questions about the rating agencies’ role have persisted, and while the agencies own shareholders have sued the rating agencies over the agencies’ own disclosures (about which refer here and here), to date subprime investors have not targeted the rating agencies for their rating activities, to the best of my knowledge.

As discussed in a prior post (here), case law suggests that the rating agencies enjoy First Amendment protection for their rating opinions and activities. And, as also discussed in my prior post, while thoughtful commentators have suggested bases on which these defenses might be overcome with respect to the rating agencies subprime-related investment rating activity, subprime investors have not targeted the rating agencies. Until now.

In a lawsuit filed on May 15, 2008 in New York Supreme Court (New York County), the New Jersey Carpenters’ Vacation Fund has filed a securities class action lawsuit under the ’33 Act on behalf of investors in the three HarborView Mortgage Loan Trusts. In a petition dated June 3, 2008, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A copy of the notice of removal, to which the original complaint is attached, can be found here.

The defendants in the lawsuit include the three HarborView mortgage pass-through certificate trusts; the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (“RBS Group”) and its subsidiary, Greenwich Capital Holdings and related entities, including Greenwich Capital Acceptance (“GCA”) and five individual directors of GCA; and the three rating agencies, Fitch’s Ratings, Moody’s Investor Services, and McGraw Hill, as corporate parent for Standard & Poor’s Rating Services.

The three trusts were issuers of bonds (the mortgage pass-through certificates) created by RBS Greenwich Capital. The offerings were collateralized with loans originated and underwritten by Countrywide Home Loans. The complain alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the offerings failed to disclose “the true impaired and defective quality of the loans collateralizing the Bonds” and that the “loans were not originated pursuant to the underwriting guidelines stated in the Registration Statement.”

The complaint alleges that the rating agency defendants “failed to conduct due diligence and willingly assigned the highest ratings to such impaired instruments since they received substantial fees from the issuer.” The complaint alleges further that the rating agencies “issued the ratings based on an outdated methodology designed in about 2002.” The ratings were alleged to be misleading because the rating agencies “presumed that the loans were of high credit quality issues in compliance with the stated underwriting guidelines, when, in fact, Countrywide had systematically disregarded its stated Underwriting Guidelines.”

The rating agencies later downgraded the mortgage-backed securities. The complaint alleges that the rating agencies “admission that they had not used an appropriate rating methodology …resulted in a substantial decline in the value of the Bonds.” The plaintiff itself claims that its investment in the instruments has declined by 55 percent.

All of the claims asserted in the Complaint are based on the ’33 Act. In Count I of the Complaint, the plaintiff specifically alleges (in paragraph 98) that the rating agencies “served as appraisers” as defined in Section 11(a)(4) of the ’33 Act. The paragraph further alleges that the rating agencies “purportedly reviewed and analyzed each offering and provided the credit rating for each tranche of the HarborView Bonds.” The paragraph further alleges that the service of providing the ratings “was essential to pricing and marketing the Bonds,” and that the ratings were contained in the Prospectus.

As far as I am aware, the plaintiffs’ complaint in the HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust lawsuit represents the first occasion as part of the current subprime litigation wave where subprime investors have sought to hold the rating agencies liable for their ratings. The plaintiff’s allegations will face a number of hurdles, including the jurisdictional issue discussed below.

In addition, the rating agencies will undoubtedly assert a number of substantive defenses, including the First Amendment defense discussed in my prior blog post (here), as well as whether the rating agencies even owed the plaintiff any duties. The rating agencies will particularly dispute the plaintiffs’ attempt to rely on Section 11(a)(4) of the ’33 Act as a basis for the rating agencies’ liability.

The jurisdictional issue pertains to the plaintiff’s initiation of the lawsuit in state court pursuant to the concurrent state court jurisdiction in Section 22 of the ’33 Act. The HarborView case is just the latest of the state court ’33 Act lawsuits arising as part of the current subprime-related litigation wave, as discussed in my prior post (here). In each case, the defendants have sought to remove these cases to federal court, notwithstanding the express prohibition in Section 22 of removal of state court cases to federal court. In at least one of the prior cases, the federal court has remanded the case back to state court in reliance on Section 22’s express removal prohibition (refer here for a discussion of the prior remand case).

It remains to be seen whether or not these cases will go forward in state or federal court. Although it is not altogether clear why the plaintiffs have sought to pursue these cases in state court, the plaintiffs clearly perceive some advantage in doing so. In any event, the success of the plaintiffs’ attempts to hold the rating agencies liable for their investment in subprime-related securities will be interesting to watch. It will also be interesting to see if other investor plaintiffs similarly seek to hold the credit rating agencies liable.

Special thanks to Adam Savett of the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here) for providing a copy of the HarborView removal petition.

Run the Numbers: I have added the HarborView case to my running tally of subprime-related securities class action lawsuits. (My tally can be accessed here). According to my count, the addition of this case, as well as the case filed late last week against Franklin Bank Corp. (about which refer here), the current tally of subprime and credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuits now stands at 88, of which 48 have been filed in 2008.

Speakers’ Corner: On June 19 and 20, 2008, I will be co-Chairing the Mealey’s Subprime Mortgage & Insurance Coverage Litigation Conference at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Virginia, with my good friend Matt Jacobs of the Jenner & Block law firm.

The agenda (which can be found here), includes many distinguished speakers and panelists, such as Andrew Carron of NERA Economic Consulting, Adel Turki of Cornerstone Research, Samuel Rudman of the Lerach Coughlin firm, Dan Bailey of Bailey & Cavalieri, John McCarrick of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, David Hensler of Hogan & Hartson, and Mitchell Dolin of Covington & Burling.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Cablevision: On June 4, 2008, Cablevision Systems announced (here) that it had entered a stipulation to settle the options-backdating litigation pending against the company, as nominal defendant, certain of its directors and officers, and other defendants. Although the Cablevision settlement is only the latest in a growing list of options backdating-related lawsuit resolutions (as is detailed on my running tally, which can be accessed here), the settlement is noteworthy both regarding the nature of the allegations involved and regarding certain aspects of the settlement, particularly as pertains to the individuals’ contributions to the settlement.  

The options backdating problems at Cablevision drew a great deal of attention when first disclosed. The company revealed that it had awarded options to a Vice Chairman after his 1999 death, but backdated the options to make it appear that the grant was awarded when he was still alive. A front page September 22, 2006 Wall Street Journal article entitled “Cablevisions Gave Backdated Grant to Dead Official” (here) quoted Columbia Law Professor John Coffee as saying that “trying to incentivize a corpse suggests they were not complying with the spirit of the shareholder-approved stock-option plan.” The ISS Corporate Governance Blog referred (here)  to the awards as “Sixth Sense” options (“I pay dead people.”)

As if that were not enough, the company also disclosed that it had also awarded options to its outside compensation consultant, Lyons Benenson & Co., but the grant had been accounted for as if the consultant (Harvey Benenson) were an employee. As I noted in a blog post at the time (here), the derivative lawsuit allegations were amended to include allegations against the compensation consultant.

According to the Stipulation of Settlement (here), the Cablevision derivative lawsuit was settled for cash payments and other consideration that the parties have represented to the court has an aggregate value of $34.4 million. Specifically, the parties agreed that Cablevision will received a cash payment of $10 million from its D&O insurer, and “cash payments from and/or relinquishment of value and/or the waiver of specific claims by certain individuals” totaling $24.4 in valued. The plaintiffs’ counsel will seek payment of fees and expenses of no more that $7.116 from the settlement fund.

The description of the components of the individuals’ $24.4 million contribution makes for some interesting reading. First, the compensation consultant, Harvey Benenson, and/or his firm, Lyons Benenson, agreed to pay $2 million over three years, at 6 percent interest, secured by his Connecticut home. He will also forfeit $1.5 million severance he claimed.

The estate of former Vice Chairman Marc Lustgarten (the recipient of the Sixth Sense option grant) relinquished all claims to $4.9 million in stock options and restricted shares, including those granted improperly after his death.

A number of other individuals agreed to return specified amounts in connection with prior option grant exercises and to relinquish other unexercised options or waive other stock or share rights.

In addition to these individual contributions, and in what is to me the most interesting part of this settlement, Cablevision Chairman Charles Dolan agreed to make a $1 million cash payment to Cablevision, “to facilitate the resolution of the case.” His son, Chief Executive James Dolan, will also make a $1 million contribution, in addition to returning $366,250 for previously exercised options.

What makes this agreement of the two Dolans to pay $1 million each interesting is Section 3.4 of the Stipulation of Settlement, which provides that the Settling Defendants “will not seek insurance coverage, reimbursement, contribution or indemnification for any of the consideration they provide …from any source, including but not limited to Cablevision, other Settling Defendants, any of the Insurers, or any other Related Person.”

The various individual defendants’ returned options exercise proceeds or waived benefits arguably would not have been covered under the typical D&O policy in any event, as it appears to represent the return of compensation to which they were not entitled (coverage for which arguably would be excluded under most policies). However, there might well have been at least a colorable basis on which the Dolans might have been able to argue that their million dollar payments would be covered, assuming the typical D&O policy and assuming other potential policy provision did not otherwise preclude coverage. The language of Section 3.4 appears to represent a deliberate effort to ensure that the Dolans and the other defendants directly bore the cost of their settlement contributions.

There was a time following the Enron and World Com settlements when there was a concern that indemnity and insurance bar provisions might become a regular feature of the settlement of claims against corporate officials. These fears were largely unrealized, and the presence of an indemnity and insurance bar remains an unusual settlement feature. Nevertheless, the possibility that these provisions might become more commonplace is a concern for corporate officials and their advisors.

It remains to be seen whether these types of provisions will be a part of other options backdating settlements, but in light of recent judicial concerns about possible collusive options backdating settlements (refer here), litigants may feel some pressure to show that the settlement was both arms’-length and represents real value. To that extent at least, there could be some pressure for other options backdating litigants to consider incorporating settlement provisions like an indemnity and insurance bar.

A June 6, 2008 Newsday article describing the Cablevision settlement can be found here. A copy of the June 7, 2008 Wall Street Journal article about the settlement can be found here.

Marvell Technology: It its June 6, 2008 filing on Form 10-Q (here), Marvell Technology disclosed that on March 5, 2008, the company had entered a stipulation of settlement regarding the consolidated options backdating-related shareholders’ derivative lawsuit that had been filed against the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its directors and officers. According to the 10-Q, the settlement includes “certain corporate governance enhancements and an agreement by us to pay up to $16 million in plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, an amount less than the $24.5 million that we received from a recent settlement with our directors’ and officers’ liability insurers.”

There are a number of interesting things about this settlement, particularly concerning the $16 million plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee. At least in the absence of any other details about the settlement in any of the company’s disclosure document or even in the court filings to date, the amount of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee seems, well, high. For example, compare the $16 million fee in the Marvell Technology settlement to the $7.116 million fee amount agreed to in the Cablevision case. The Cablevision case involved some fairly noteworthy complications, and the settlement of the Cablevision case resulted in the payment of significant amounts back to the corporation. By contrast, at least as far as can be discerned from the company’s recent 10-Q, the Marvell Technology settlement involved no cash payment to the company.

The $8.5 million increment of the insurance settlement in excess of the $16 million plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee is not explained in the 10-Q. It could be supposed that that $8.5 million represents a benefit to the corporation (although it could just as easily represent a reimbursement to the company for its own fees incurred in defense of the lawsuit). Even if the $8.5 million represents some benefit that accrued to the company as a result of the derivative lawsuit, the expenditure of $16 million in fees to recover $8.5 million seems like a poor exchange.

The question of what the company got out of the lawsuit is relevant and likely to be asked in light of the concerns that Judge Alsop raised in connection with the recent Zoran options backdating-related derivative lawsuit settlement (about which refer here). The Marvell Technology settlement could be argued to have the same issues as the Zoran settlement, in which, as Judge Alsop stated, “the corporation would receive no cash, all the cash is going to the counsel.” Of course, the $8.5 million insurance settlement increment could be argued to represent some cash to the company, but the ratio of the benefit to the corporation versus the benefit to plaintiffs’ counsel does not favor the settlement.

According to Marvell’s 10-Q, the settlement still requires court approval. Perhaps with the benefit of a full explanation of the settlement, the merits of the settlement might be more apparent. However, the description of the settlement in the 10-Q does at least suggest some serious questions.

A June 9, 2008 Law.com article discussing the Marvell Technology settlement can be found here. Special thanks to Zusha Elinson of The Recorder for providing a link to the 10-Q.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In arguably the most substantive ruling yet in a subprime-related securities class action lawsuit, Judge Ortrie Smith of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, in a June 4 opinion (here) in the NovaStar Financial subprime-related securities class action lawsuit, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice.

The NovaStar lawsuit, which was first filed on February 23, 2007, was one of the first subprime-related securities class action lawsuits to be filed. Background regarding the lawsuit can be found here. The lawsuit alleges that NovaStar, a real estate investment trust, lacked adequate internal controls, as a result of which the company materially misstated its financial results and condition. The lawsuit followed the company’s February 20, 2007 announcement of disappointing results and deteriorating marketplace conditions.

Judge Smith granted the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint does not adequately plead falsity and does not adequately plead scienter.

In addressing the falsity requirements, Judge Smith noted the PSLRA’s specificity requirements, and observed that the complaint, despite its over 100 pages and over 200 paragraphs “presents a very broad picture, and Plaintiff discusses his claims in generalities – precisely what the PSLRA counsels against.” This, Judge Smith said, allowed the Complaint to “create the illusion of detail and insinuate the existence of fraud, which in turn has made it exceedingly difficult for the Court to conduct the analysis required by law.”

After reviewing the complaint’s specific allegations of falsity and finding them each in turn to be inadequate, Judge Smith concluded that “ultimately, Plaintiff fails to identify a single false entry in the Company’s financial statements, nor does he identify the ‘truth’ that should have been disclosed.” Judge Smith goes on to add that the Complaint “reads more like a cautionary tale from a treatise on business management than a charge of knowing misstatements and concealments.” Companies, the court said, “are not expected to be clairvoyant and bad decisions do not constitute fraud.”

With respect to plaintiff’s scienter allegations, the court concludes that the plaintiff “had not presented facts creating an inference of scienter that is at least as strong as an inference that Defendants lacked fraudulent intent.” The court noted that the allegations are “more consistent with a company and executives confronting a deterioration in the business and finding itself unable to prevent it than they are with a company and executives recklessly deceiving the investing community.”

Judge Smith declined to allow the plaintiffs leave to replead, concluding it “would be futile,” since there is “no suggestion that any material was concealed or that any Defendant acted with fraudulent intent, and there is no reason to think further or different pleading will created the necessary inferences.”

The Court’s opinion is pretty much a clean sweep for the defendants, but it is hard to know what the larger significance of the opinion might be. There are few other subprime cases pending in the Western District of Missouri (for which the plaintiffs’ bar is undoubtedly grateful, given the outcome in the NovaStar case), and courts in other jurisdictions may or may attach weight to Judge Smith’s ruling.

One aspect of the opinion that could be significant if it represents the perspective with which other courts will view these cases, and that is the extent to which Judge Smith viewed this case through the screen of the generally deteriorating financial markets and business conditions. Other judges, like Judge Smith, may be similarly disinclined to find anything nefarious in a company’s failure to anticipate declining business conditions – at least in the absence of insider trading or other more compelling factors.

While there may be cases such as the Countrywide derivative lawsuit which courts may be predisposed to allow (about which refer here), there may be others, like the NovaStar case, where courts prove unwilling to infer wrongdoing from business reverses. At a minimum, the NovaStar opinion is a reminder that merely because a company’s fortunes have declined and the plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit does not necessarily mean that the plaintiffs will prevail or make any recovery. There may be more than a few of the cases filed as part of the subprime litigation wave that also fail to survive the initial pleading hurdles.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a prior post (here), I described the growing litigation risk arising out of credit default swap (CDS) transactions. In their recent overview of subprime-related litigation entitled “The Pebble and the Pool: The (Global) Expansion of Subprime Litigation” (here), John Doherty and Richard Hans of the Thacher Proffitt and Wood law firm note that “more lawsuits involving credit default swaps are likely to be initiated in the near future, as the current trend has the potential for huge losses resulting from the defaults on ‘high-yield’ or ‘junk” bonds in connection with the general market failure.”

In a June 1, 2008 article entitled “First Came the Swap. Then It’s the Knives” (here), New York Times columnist Gretchen Morgenson takes a close look at one failed CDS transaction and the litigation that has followed, about which she quotes “experts” as saying that the case is “the first of what will likely be a flood of disputes between big banks and hedge funds that typically strike swap deals.”

The swap involved was issued by a Paramax Capital hedge fund in early 2007 to insure $1.31 bilion of AAA-rated super senior notes that “reflected performance of subprime mortgages in a collateralized debt obligation underwritten by UBS.” The Paramax fund, which itself had just $200 million in capital, organized a special purpose entity capitalized with just $4.6 million, to conduct the swap. Paramax was to receive an annual fee of 0.155 percent of the notes’ $1.31 billion value (or slightly more than $2 million), and would be subject to additional collateral requirements if the notes’ value declined.

Over the course of 2007, UBS presented escalating requirements that Paramax post a total of $33 million in additional collateral. When Paramax refused, UBS sued. According to the Times article, Paramax now contends that a UBS managing director (no longer with the company) induced Paramax to enter the transaction, and to address Paramax’s concern that it might be called upon to post additional collateral, reassured Paramax that the mark-to-market risk on the underlying securities was low because UBS used “subjective valuations” designed to reduce the impact of market fluctuations.

As detailed further in the Times article, there are a number of interesting things about this transaction. From my perspective, the most noteworthy aspect is that UBS considered a special purpose entity with only $4.6 million in capital to be an appropriate source of default insurance for instruments with a face value of $1.31 billion. UBS’s contractual right to demand additional collateral from the hedge fund, which itself had capital of only $200 million (which presumably was deployed in other ways and accordingly unavailable in its entirety as additional collateral), seems a woefully inadequate explanation for this transaction.

The Naked Capitalism blog (here) notes that “UBS was clearly well aware of Paramax’s limits, so the next question is: was UBS solely responsible for pulling a fast one on the CDO buyers or is Paramax a co-conspirator?”

This litigation between UBS and Paramax resembles the CDO Plus litigation I discussed in my prior post (here) about swaps. In those cases as well, a thinly capitalized hedge fund was unable to meet demands for additional collateral and wound up in litigation with the large commercial banks that had purchased CDS protection from the fund. As consequences from the credit crisis continue to roll through the financial marketplace, CDS counterparties are likely to face further collateral demands, which can only fuel further litigation.

But the counterparties themselves are not the only potential litigants. Behind the CDS purchaser are the investors who made investments in the belief that the investment interests were “insured” against default. As it emerges that this insurance depended upon facially inadequate counterparties, investors may join the fray. As the Naked Capitalism blog post linked above notes, “since over 30% of the credit default swaps were written by hedge funds, many of whom were probably as incapable as Paramax of performing in the event of default, it’s not unreasonable to assume that some of these CDS lawsuits will lay the groundwork for investor litigation.”

Another aspect of the role of CDS in the financial marketplace is leading to yet another variety of CDS-related litigation. That is, because there is no requirement that a CDS buyer hold the underlying instruments, swaps are often used as a means to speculate on interest spreads. That means that these instruments can serve an investment purpose separate apart from their insurance purpose.

The problem for companies that have used swaps for investment purposes is that as a result of the credit turmoil, the market for these instruments in an uproar, and the instruments’ valuation has become uncertain. Indeed, as recent circumstances have shown, these valuation issues are present whether a company holds the swap as an investor or as an insurer. Several of the most significant recent financial institution asset write-downs have involved these CDS valuation uncertainties; for example, a substantial part of the recent write-downs of Swiss Re and of American International Group related to CDS valuation issues. Significantly, in both instances, shareholders litigation ensued following the write-downs. (Refer here regarding the Swiss Re litigation and refer here regarding the AIG litigation). It seems highly improbable that there will not be further shareholder litigation over these CDS valuation issues.

As reflected in the June 6, 2008 Wall Street Journal (here), the recent signs are that the turmoil in the financial marketplace is far from over , as a result of which the pressure on CDS will remain, and there likely will be further litigation. Even if only a tiny percentage of CDS transactions beget litigation, the problem could be huge. According to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (here), the aggregate notional value of credit defaults swaps outstanding at the end of 2007 was $62 trillion, an amount which arguably exceeds the value of bank deposits worldwide. It is nearly three times the value of the U.S. stock markets.

With numbers that astronomical, even a small sliver represents a mammoth problem. With nominal values of $62 trillion, issues concerning valuation present a potentially frightening prospect for companies, their investors, and their insurers. As Time Magazine said in its recent article entitled “Credit Default Swaps: The Next Crisis?” (here), “a meltdown in the CDS market has potentially even wider ramifications nationwide than the subprime crisis.”

Susan Mangiero has an interesting post (here) on her Pension Risk Matters blog about these issues.

The “Pebble in the Pool” article I linked to above presents a very good overview of the subprime-related litigation generally and is worth reviewing on its own for those purposes.

Another Subprime-Related Lawsuit Against Mutual Fund: On June 5, 2008, plaintiffs’ attorneys initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of the Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond Fund who purchased their fund shares within three years of the lawsuit’s filing.

According to the complaint (which can be found here), the defendants in the lawsuit include Fidelity Management & Research Company, which is the investment advisor to the Fidelity mutual funds, and related entities, and also include the 21 individual trustees of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund.

According to the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ June 5, 2008 press release describing the complaint (which can be found here), the plaintiffs allege that the defendants solicited investors to purchase fund shares by making statements that described the fund as a fund that “(i) “Seeks a high level of current income consistent with the preservation of capital”; (ii) “allocates its assets across different market sectors and maturities”; (iii) has a “similar overall interest rate risk to the Lehman Brothers® 6 Month Swap Index”; and (iv) is geared toward the “preservation of capital.”  

The complaint alleges that these statements were false because “defendants did not adequately disclose the risks associated with investing in the Fund, including, for example, that the Fund was: (i) failing to compete with the Lehman Brothers® 6 Month Swap Index; and (ii) so heavily invested in high-risk mortgage-backed securities.”

I have added this case to my running tally of subprime-related litigation, which can be found here. With the addition of this lawsuit, the tally now stands at 86 subprime-related securities class action lawsuits, of which 46 have been filed in 2008.

I note that by my count, this new lawsuit represents the fourth subprime-related lawsuit against a mutual fund or mutual fund family. The other include Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund (about which refer here), Regions Morgan Keegan Funds (refer here), and the Schwab Yield Plus Fund (refer here).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For many companies, one of the hardest parts of the D&O insurance transaction is determining how much insurance to buy. Against a backdrop of basic affordability, the company must consider complex issues of limits adequacy – that is, how much insurance is “enough”? These issues are even more fraught in a time of generally rising claims severity (about which, refer here).

As discussed below, recent developments in one current claim underscore the fact that in addition to rising settlement levels, escalating defense expense is an increasingly important part of the limits adequacy equation. In addition, these recent developments also demonstrate that many related issues should also weigh into the limits adequacy analysis, and these same issues also have important implications for the structure of the insurance program, as well.

University of Denver Law Professor J. Robert Brown, Jr. has a post today (here) on his indispensable blog, The Race to the Bottom, discussing developments involving Paul Barnaba, a former employee of bankrupt auto parts supplier Collins & Aikman. Barnaba is caught up in the criminal case involving David Stockman, the former head of the OMB under Ronald Reagan, who was C&A’s CEO from 2001, when Stockman’s private equity fund took control of C&A, until shortly before the company’s 2005 bankruptcy. Barnaba is described in the indictment as “employed by the purchasing department” and identified as Director of Financial Analysis and eventually Director and Vice President of Purchasing for the Plastics Division. Background regarding the criminal prosecution can be found here.

As Professor Brown explained in an earlier post (here), Barnaba has moved to sever his criminal case from the other criminal defendants and to set the case for an early trial date. Barnaba asserts that, due to his indictment, he faces overwhelming personal and professional difficulties. He also argues that the protracted criminal proceedings threaten him with financial ruin, and he contends further that the proceeds of the applicable D&O policy “are quickly dwindling.”

The government opposed Barnaba’s motion, arguing among other things that Barnaba’s concerns about the dwindling D&O insurance are “wholly speculative and unsubstantiated.”

In his Reply to the government’s opposition, Barnaba vigorously disagrees with the government’s attempt to belittle his concerns about the dwindling D&O policy. His Reply explains that Collins & Aikman has a $50 million insurance program arranged in four layers. This insurance “provides coverage to a wide variety of former Collins & Aikman executives and employees,” including not only the criminal defendants, but also “those who have been sued or subpoenaed in the civil SEC matter, and those who have been sued or subpoenaed in various class actions and other civil suits.”

Barnaba explains in his Reply that the first $15 million layer of coverage was exhausted on or about June 15, 2007, and the second $15 million layer was exhausted on or about March 31, 2008 (for defense work completed through February 2008). As Barnaba notes, “the second $15 million layer of coverage was exhausted in nine months at a rate of approximately $1.67 million per month” and he adds that the “monthly rate was higher at the end of than at the beginning of this nine-month period.”

In any event, for the defense work completed in March 2008 and later, only $20 million of coverage remains. Barnaba argues that “[a]ssuming a monthly burn rate of $2 million to $3 million, which is realistic and likely conservative, all policy proceeds will be exhausted sometime between mid-September 2008 and December 31, 2008. This is not speculative.”

It is hard not to sympathize with Barnaba’s plight, regardless of the merits of the criminal matter. He has been caught in the maelstrom. The outcome of his motion to sever and to set a trial date remains to be seen, but it is hard to imagine a court agreeing to allow a high-profile criminal case like this one to be tried piecemeal. The D&O insurance could well be gone long before the case finally goes to trial.

Separate and apart from the actual merits of Barnaba’s motion are the implications of his plight for the issue of D&O insurance limits adequacy.

The first and most basic point is the importance of defense expense in the limits adequacy analysis. The potential for defense expense to exhaust or substantially deplete the available limits is most obvious in a catastrophic claim like the one involving Collins & Aikman, but even in less catastrophic circumstances, accumulating defense expense can substantially reduce the indemnity protection available even in a large insurance program. And the insurance is supposed to able to respond adequately in all circumstances, even the unlikely event of a catastrophic claim. In considering the requirements that a catastrophic claim can present, it is important to note that the aggregate defense expense related to the Collins & Aikman claim consumed $15 million in just nine months.

The second point is that one of the problems in the Collins & Aikman claim is that so many different people are accessing the policy, for a wide variety of different matters. The potential for the policy limits to drain away through so many different access points is perhaps inherent in the current standard D&O policy structure, in which so many different people are included as “insured persons” and so many different kinds of matters fall within the definition of a covered “claim.”

While this breadth of coverage is generally viewed as a positive thing from the policyholder’s perspective, it has the inherent potential (a potential that is being dramatically realized in the Collins & Aikman claim) for accelerated policy erosion and even depletion. The erosion potential inherent in the breadth of available policy coverage is a consideration that is too infrequently considered in connection with the question of limits adequacy.

Third, the problem Barnaba faces is not just his alone – all of the other “insured persons” are also facing imminent insurance program depletion. Once the available insurance is used up, these individuals will face continued complex litigation without further insurance available to defend or indemnify themselves. Among other things, it could prove difficult and painful for the defendants in the civil lawsuits to extricate themselves without insurance available.

All of that said, the solutions to these problems are not easy. With the benefit of hindsight, it is tempting to argue that the company should have carried higher limits. The fact is that many companies of Collins & Aikman’s pre-catastrophe size (the company had a market capitalization of approximately $500 million a year before it went bankrupt) choose to carry D&O limits lower than the $50 million that Collins & Aikman carried. Many companies are unwilling or unable to buy greater limits.

In the end the analysis comes down to the perennial question of limits adequacy – that is, how much insurance is enough?

In light of the escalating average claims severity, and of the numerous implications from Barnaba’s plight (including the catastrophic potential for defense expense to deplete policy limits), it may be time to rethink commonplace concepts of limits adequacy, because past notions may no longer be sufficient. Average claims severity is increasing. Defense expense does have the catastrophic potential to exhaust policy limits. In addition, new developments, such as the growing opt-out phenomenon (discussed most recently here), pose additional challenges to the traditional limits adequacy analysis.

Increased program limits alone, however, may not solve all of the problems. Indeed, it could be argued that even were higher limits available, they might not adequately protect Barnaba and the other Collins & Aikman defendants. Given the astonishing potential for defense expense to consume available insurance (I mean, $15 million in nine months, for crying out loud), even a substantially larger insurance program than the one Collins & Aikman maintained might prove to be insufficient.

Part of the solution has to be program structure. Clearly, a key reason that the Collins & Aikman program is melting away is that so many different people are accessing it. One way that well-advised corporate officials can ensure they are not left without insurance to protect them as individuals is through supplemental D&O insurance structures dedicated solely to their own protection. These supplemental structures might take any one of a number of different forms, including for example, excess Side A coverage for a specified group of individuals, or even through an individual D&O insurance policy (so-called IDL coverage). While there are a variety of ways this supplemental insurance might be structured, the crisis Barnaba faces underscores the importance of addressing these issues as part of the insurance acquisition process.

One final thought about Barnaba. That is, the typical insurance acquisition process conversation is usually limited to considerations involving the exposures of the most senior corporate officials. The possible exposures of “supporting cast” employees such as Barnaba are usually not a central part of the dialog. For that reason, it is relatively unlikely that the deployment of supplement insurance structures, as important as they are, would do much for someone like Barnaba.

In the end, someone at Barnaba’s level is, in all likelihood, going to be (as in the case of Barnaba himself) dependent on the continued availability of insurance proceeds under the traditional D&O insurance policy. This final point underscores the importance of a thorough review of all considerations involved in the issue of limits adequacy, including in particular the number of persons potentially dependent on the policy for protection. As I noted, it may be time to reconsider traditional notions of limits adequacy, in light of all of these considerations.

Very special thanks to Professor Brown for providing a heads up about his post.

Brocade Settles Options Timing-Related Securities Class Action Lawsuit: According to the company’s June 2, 2008 press release (here), Brocade Communications has reached an agreement to settle the options-backdating related securities class action lawsuit pending against the company and certain of its directors and officers, in exchange for an agreement to pay $160 million. Background regarding the litigation can be found here.

I have added the Brocade settlement to my table of options backdating-related settlements and dismissals, which can be accessed here.

A WSJ.com Law Blog post about the settlement can be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In October 2000, the SEC promulgated Rule 10b5-1 to provide company insiders with a way to trade their shares in company stock without incurring securities law liability, through the pre-trading adoption of a written trading plan. Despite the Rule’s protective purpose, concerns have arisen more recently about Rule 10b5-1 plan abuses, as I noted in prior posts (here and here).

Indeed, concerns about Angelo Mozilo’s possible Rule 10b5-1 plan misuse were an important part of the court’s recent refusal to dismiss the Countrywide subprime-related derivative lawsuit. (My prior post about the Countrywide dismissal denial can be found here. A more detailed analysis of the Countrywide court’s discussion of Rule 10b5-1 plan issues can be found on The Corporate Counsel.net blog, here.)

A May 27, 2008 paper by University of Chicago Law Professor Todd Henderson, Stanford Business School Professor Alan Jagolinzer, and Penn State Business Professor Karl Muller entitled “Scienter Disclosure” (here) looks at Rule 10b5-1 plans from a different perspective, asking what can be inferred from a company’s disclosure of its officials’ plans. The authors’ surprising conclusion is that the more detailed a company’s plan disclosure, the more likely are the subsequent trades to capture abnormal trading returns.

The starting point of the authors’ analysis is that, although Rule 10b5-1 itself does not require the plans to be disclosed, “disclosure can enhance the legal protection by increasing the likelihood of early dismissal of class action lawsuits.” This “litigation benefit” arises due to the fact a Rule 10b5-1 plan trading defense will only be available at to dismissal stage if the plan is identified and described in the company’s SEC filings (which a court may consider at the initial pleading stage). If the company fully discloses the plan details, “a court may better ascertain that the allegedly fraudulent trades fall within the Rule’s affirmative defense, thereby increasing the possibility of a low-cost dismissal.”

From this, the authors infer that companies perceiving a greater litigation risk are “more apt to disclose the existence and details of Rule 10b5-1 plans.” But there are costs associated with disclosing the plans, particularly “if investors infer a price relevant signal from disclosure or if disclosure enhances investors’ monitoring of insiders’ trade plan commitment.” The “signal” might encourage investor “front running” which could deprive the insider of anticipated trading profits. The monitoring “reduces the value of early termination options” the insider might have if a planned trade no longer appears desirable.

The authors hypothesized that insiders will nonetheless prefer Rule 10b5-1 plan disclosure if the “scienter disclosure” provides incremental litigation benefit – which is likely to be greatest precisely where the ability to trade provides the greatest opportunity to profit. That is, “pre-disclosure of trade may be strategic in the face of high legal risk if it mitigates legal risk and does not fully reveal privately held information.”

The authors examined company disclosures for hundreds of companies during the period between October 2000 and December 2006, and grouped the companies according to whether the companies had low, moderate or detailed Rule 10b5-1 plan disclosure. The authors then correlated the companies’ disclosure and “subsequent firm returns and earning performance.” The authors found that “more specific 10b5-1 plan disclosures are associated with more negative post-trade abnormal returns” and that “the association between sales transactions and subsequent negative performance is increasing in disclosure specificity, after controlling for other factors that are associated with firm returns.”

As a group, executives at those companies with the most detailed disclosure avoided an average of 12% loss in the companies’ trades relative to the broader market in the six months following their sales. The authors conclude that “voluntary Rule 10b5-1 plan disclosure is associated with the higher level firm legal risk and a proxy for insider’s potential strategic trade.”

In other words, the more detailed disclosure manifests insiders’ perception that subsequent trades are more likely to be advantageous – and therefore legal protection is more likely to be important, justifying the detailed disclosure.

These data suggest, and the authors hypothesize, that “investors should respond negatively to specific disclosures regarding 10b5-1 participation, if they infer that insiders have high strategic trade potential for which they seek high litigation protection.” However, the authors found that there is no observable negative investor response to Rule 10b5-1 disclosure.

The authors’ conclusions have a number of important implications. Obviously, investors may be missing an important signal related to 10b5-1 disclosure. Another important implication relates to the protection that the Rule affords; the authors’ conclusion that the companies with the most detailed disclosure are also the ones with the most fortunate timing suggests that, at least in some companies, transparency may be facilitating aggressive stock sales. The Rule was designed to provide company officials with a way to trade safely, but the authors’ study suggests that at least some company officials may be using the Rule as a shield to unload stock at an opportune time.

While I confess that initially I found the authors’ conclusions troubling, after further reflection I am less concerned. The problem here is not that insiders are using Rule 10b5-1 plans and plan disclosure strategically – after all, the whole idea of the Rule was to facilitate trading, and there is certainly no suggestion that trades made pursuant to the Rule cannot be advantageous. The problem is that at least so far, investors have missed the negative signal that Rule 10b5-1 plan disclosure implies.

The authors themselves speculate that the absence of negative investor reaction “may indicate that there are frictions to implementing strategies based on 10b5-1 disclosure signals or that investors do not understand 10b5-1 disclosure implications, which is possible if our same period reflects the transition period regarding 10b5-1 use.” To the extent, however, that the signal is better understood, the more the marketplace itself will discipline the process.

The greater likelihood that the mere announcement of a 10b5-1 plan could undermine a company’s share price could provide a missing disciplinary constraint on strategic trading and reduce company officials’ ability to capture abnormal returns. In other words, the whole mechanism will function better if investors appreciate the significance of 10b5-1 disclosure – an appreciation that the authors’ research clearly should facilitate.

A May 27, 2008 USA Today article discussing the authors’ study can be found here. An entry on the University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog discussing the article can be found here.

Very special thanks to Professor Henderson for alerting me to the article and for providing me with a link.

Another Options Backdating-Related Class Action Settlement: In its May 8, 2008 filing (here), Kratos Defense & Security Solutions (formerly known as Wireless Facilities) announced that in March 2008, it had reached a tentative agreement to settle the options backdating-related securities class action lawsuit pending against the company and certain of its directors and officers. The amount of the settlement is $4.5 million, of which $1.7 million will come from the company and the balance of which will come from the company’s D&O insurer.

I have added this settlement to my table of options backdating-related lawsuit settlements and dismissals, which can be accessed here.

Hat tip to Adam Savett of the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here) for providing the heads’ up about the Wireless Facilities settlement

Not Just Immune, But Infallible: If you were immensely rich and powerful, you too might well, as did the Sultan of Brunei in 2004, amend the constitution to “declare himself infallible and immune from any obligation to appear in court …and to subject anyone who criticizes him to criminal punishment.”

Those curious to know how a court might actually apply a provision like this and related legal issues will want to refer to Francis Pileggi’s Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog (here), in which Pileggi reviews a May 23, 2008 Delaware Chancery Court decisions involving the Sultan and his brother. Among other things, Pileggi notes that in the course of reaching its decision, the Court “recites the background facts of royal family battles that could be part of a movie script.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link