In an interesting February 11, 2010 decision (here), Southern District of New York Judge Victor Marrero allowed plaintiffs, whose subprime-related securities class action lawsuit Marrero had previously dismissed, leave to file a second amended complaint against Credit Suisse Global and certain of its directors and officers.


Judge Marrero also found the securities fraud allegations in the proposed amended complaint to be legally sufficient, meaning that the claims can now go forward, although he also ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction over the claims of plaintiffs that resided outside the U.S. and that had purchased their shares outside the U.S.



Credit Suisse is domiciled in Switzerland. Its shares trade on several securities exchanges outside the U.S. and its ADRs trade on the NYSE. As reported in greater detail here, the plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in this action in April 2008. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had made material misrepresentations about the company’s asset valuation system, its internal controls (which allegedly allowed unauthorized placement of high risk mortgage-backed assets in client accounts), and its own exposure to losses related to subprime mortgages.


In an October 5, 2009 order (here), Judge Marrero had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of claimants who reside outside the U.S. and who had purchased their shares on foreign exchanges (so-called f-cubed claimants). The complaint had not identified the domicile of some other named plaintiffs, but Judge Marrero dismissed their claims as well.


In his prior ruling he required plaintiffs to seek leave to file an amended complaint, which the plaintiffs did. His February 11 opinion addressed the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint.


The February 11 Opinion

In his February 11 decision, Judge Marrero granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their amended complaint, at least as to certain of the claimants.


Judge Marrero first found that the amended complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction as to the foreign domiciled claimants that had purchased their shares on foreign exchanges. In reliance on the Second Circuit’s National Australia Bank standard (about which refer here), he found that because the alleged misrepresentations had originated in Switzerland, there was insufficient U.S.-based conduct to support the court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of the non-U.S. claimants.


However, Judge Marrero found that the amended complaint contained sufficient allegations to permit the exercise of jurisdiction as to the claims of the U.S.-based claimants. The amended complaint alleged that more than 75 million Credit Suisse shares were held by institutional investors, representing over 11% of shares outstanding, and therefore there were sufficient "effect" alleged within the U.S. to support jurisdiction.


Judge Marrero then proceeded to determine that the plaintiffs’ securities fraud allegations were legally sufficient. Among other thing, he found that though the proposed amended complaint "contains much extraneous detail and irrelevant information," within the "remaining core of what is pertinent" the plaintiffs’ proposed complaint "sufficiently alleges scienter."


The proposed complaint relies heavily on confidential witness statements, from which Judge Marrero determined that the proposed complaint "alleges sufficient facts showing that the Defendants had direct knowledge of information contradicting their public statements or access to similar statements they should have monitored." Judge Marrero concluded that the proposed complaint properly pled scienter to support theories of fraud based on alleged schemes to "overvalue assets, underestimate risk, hide subprime exposure, ignored weaknesses of [the company’] risk management and internal controls, and violate GAAP."



As a result of Judge Marrero’s February 11 ruling, the Credit Suisse Group subprime-related securities case, which had initially been dismissed, will now go forward. The Credit Suisse case is the latest in a series of subprime-related securities suits in which dismissal motions were initially granted, but in which the amended complaints later survived renewed dismissal motions. This list of cases in this series includes the PMI Group case (here), the Washington Mutual case (here), and the BankAtlantic Bancorp case (here).


The ability of the plaintiffs in these cases to cure initial pleading deficiencies and to overcome preliminary pleading hurdles is noteworthy. Among other things, it casts important light on the list of subprime-related securities cases in which motions to dismiss have been granted. Many of these dismissals are without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs in a number of these cases, like the plaintiffs in the Credit Suisse case, may yet find a way to survive renewed dismissal motions and live for another day.


The outcomes of many of the dismissal motion rulings (at least to this point) the subprime-related securities cases could possible be interpreted to suggest that the cases were not faring particularly well. As reflected in my table of subprime-related lawsuit dismissal motion rulings, which can be accessed here, of the 48 subprime-related securities lawsuits in which dismissal motion rulings had been entered, fully 31, or nearly 65%, had resulted in the dismissal motions being granted, a dismissal rate the far exceeds typical patterns.


However, in 16 of the 31 cases, the dismissals were without prejudice. Many of the cases in which dismissal motion motions have been granted may yet survive renewed dismissal motions.


In any event, there still have only been dismissal motion rulings in about 27% of the subprime and credit crisis-related securities suits. The dismissal motions have not yet heard in nearly three quarters of the subprime and credit crisis-related securities suits. Though the subprime litigation wave first started in February 2007 and is now entering its fourth year, it still has a very long way to run. And many cases yet to be heard and other cases surviving renewed motions to dismiss, it is far too early to try to say one way or the other that cases are or are not faring well.


The fact that the Credit Suisse claims involve a foreign-domiciled corporate defendant is also noteworthy. Many of the subprime-related securities cases involve non-U.S. companies. the Credit Suisse case show that in at least some of these cases against foreign companies, the plaintiffs will succeed in establishing jurisdiction, even if the allegedly misleading statements originated outside the U.S., although in those cases the claims of foreign domiciled investors who purchased their shares on foreign exchanges may or may be allowed to continue.


Many thanks to a loyal reader for sending me a copy of the Credit Suisse decision.


Speaking of Jurisdiction Over Foreign-Domiciled Companies: One of the ways in which companies domiciled outside the United States can, in at least some kinds of cases, seek to avoid the burden and risk of defending litigation in the United States is by asserting the principle of forum non conveniens. This judicial tenet allows a court to defer jurisdiction where principles of justice and convenience favor the action being brought in another forum.


A February 2010 memo by the Sherman & Sterling law firm (here) discusses this principle and analyzes its recent application in the Cadbury Shareholder Litigation, a purported derivative class action that had been filed in connection with Kraft Foods hostile takeover bid. The action was brought in New Jersey federal court though Cadbury is a U.K. company, U.K law governs the Board’s conduct, and none of the parties resided in New Jersey.


In the Cadbury case, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, determining among other things that the U.K. was an adequate alternative forum and that the plaintiffs’ choice of forum was entitled to little deference. The court also found that the differences between U.K. and U.S. takeover law did not detract from the availability of an adequate alternative forum in the U.K.


The principles of forum non conveniens could provide a substantial defense in other derivative litigation involving foreign domiciled companies. It is less likely to be relevant in class action cases alleging violations of the U.S. securities laws, as the availability of an adequate alternative forum may be far less likely given the absence in many jurisdictions of adequate alternatives to the remedies available under the U.S. securities laws.


In any event, the recent decision in the Cadbury case represents yet another case in which U.S. courts have sought to determine the circumstances under which it is and is not appropriate for U.S. courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign-domiciled companies.


Bankruptcy Court Did Not Abuse Discretion in Granted Relief From Automatic Stay Allowing D&O Insurer to Reimburse Individual’s Defense Expenses: In an opinion filed on January 29, 2010 (here), the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting relief from the automatic stay in bankruptcy to allow the company’s D&O insurer to advance an individual insured’s legal expenses.


Layne Sapp had been the sole director, chief executive officer and majority shareolder of MILA, Inc., a mortgage brokerage firm. The company had a $1 million D&O insurance policy. The company filed for bankruptcy and the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding against Sapp alleging a number of claims. Sapp incurred legal costs defending himself. The D&O carrier agreed to advance his defense expenses if Sapp obtained a comfort order stating that the Insurer was not violating the automatic stay by making the payments.


Sapp filed a request for relief from the automatic stay to allow the D&O insurer to pay his defense expense. The trustee opposed the motion on the ground arguing that the policy proceeds were estate property and that payment of Sapp’s defense expense would deplete the limits. (Oddly and unusually, MILA’s D&O policy did not have so-called entity coverage, so the Trustee’s assertions of the estate’s rights to the policy proceeds were limited to the company’s reimbursement coverage under Side B of the policy).


The bankruptcy court granted Sapp’s request and the Trustee appealed.


The appellate panel held that the bankruptcy court had not abused its discretion in granting relief from the stay. The appellate panel found that the bankruptcy court had appropriately weighed the parties’ respective harms and determined that Sapp had shown the requisite case for relief.


The debate about the right to D&O insurance policy proceeds in the bankruptcy context is a long-standing and sometimes vexatious issue. A good summary of the principles involved can be found in a 2006 memo by Wiley Rein’s Kim Melvin, here.


And Finally: A surprising number of people manage to figure this one out on their own without even requiring instruction — "How to Suck at Facebook" (here).