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

About the UnitedHealth Group Class Action Settlement: UnitedHealth Group announced on July 2, 2008 (here) that it reached an agreement to settle its high profile options backdating-related securities class action lawsuit for $895 million. A July 3, 2008 Law.com article discussing the settlement can be found here.

Not only is this settlement the largest options backdating related securities lawsuit settlement to date, it is one of the largest securities settlements ever. The settlement does at least provide some counterweight to the view that some have expressed (refer here) that the options backdating related lawsuits may be settling low compared to historical standards.

This settlement, together with the $750 million Xerox settlement announced in March 2008 (including $80 million from the company’s auditor) and the flood of high profile, high stakes subprime-related litigation, may also undercut the view that has been expressed that overall settlements may begin to decline as the cases from the era of corporate scandals cycle out of the system.

It is probably worth noting that, as reported in the July 3, 2008 Wall Street Journal (here), the UnitedHealth settlement has not yet been completely resolved, as the settlement does not include United ealth’s former CEO William McGuire, nor does it include its former General Counsel, David Lubben.

Although it has not received nearly as much attention, it is also noteworthy that in its July 2 press release UnitedHealth also announced that it had also settled for $17 million the options backdating related ERISA lawsuit pending against the company and certain of its officials. As far as I am aware, this is the roughly half dozen options backdating related ERISA lawsuit to have settled. (To see a complete list of options backdating related ERISA lawsuits, refer here.)

Derivative litigation related to the options backdating woes at UnitedHealth previously resulted in the largest reported derivative settlement, as I discussed in a prior post, here.

I have added the UnitedHealth options backdating securities class action lawsuit settlement and ERISA lawsuit settlement to my table of the options backdating related settlements and dismissals, which can be accessed here.

Credit Rating Lawsuits: As I discussed in a recent post (here), even though the credit rating agencies’ conflicted role has been a central topic in the discussions surrounding the subprime meltdown, the plaintiffs’ lawyers have largely avoided drawing the credit rating agencies into the subprime litigation. However, lawsuits filed just in the past several days suggest that this may be changing, in addition to the lawsuit discussed in my prior post.

Though the plaintiffs’ lawyers had not generally been targeting the credit rating agencies for their rating activities, they have previously filed lawsuits on behalf of the shareholders of Moody’s (refer here) and  of The McGraw Hill Company, parent of Standard & Poor’s (refer here), alleging misrepresentation in their financial disclosures.

As described in a July 1, 2008 press release (here), plaintiffs’ lawyers have now initiated a shareholder securities class action lawsuit against Fimalac, S.A., the corporate parent of Fitch’s rating agency. According to the press release, the complaint (which can be found here) alleges that the defendants failed to disclose with respect to Fitch’s ratings of Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS) and Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO) that:

(i) the information upon which Fitch based its ratings of RMBS and CDOs was misleading and in many cases fraudulent; (ii) to continue to collect fees for its ratings, Fitch was applying lax standards or no standards at all when issuing its RMBS and CDO ratings; and (iii) Fitch was failing to monitor the credit quality of RMBS and CDOs after issuing its initial ratings, as Fitch was obligated to do, and many of these securities had deteriorated badly after Fitch had issued its ratings. Fitch is now under investigation by the New York Attorney General, the Connecticut Attorney General, the Ohio Attorney General and the SEC as a result of its practices of rating billions of dollars of securities without a reasonable basis for doing so and Fimalac’s stock is trading at approximately 50% of its Class Period high.

But the new Fimilac shareholder lawsuit is directed against Fimilac as a reporting company, not directly against the company for Fitch’s rating agency activities. As I noted in my prior post, plaintiffs' lawyers have largely avoided allegations against rating agencies for their rating activities. However, in a lawsuit initiated in New York state court on June 3 , 2008 and removed to federal court on June 23, 2008, plaintiffs have alleged that entities affiliated with Credit Suisse, and the Moody’s, S&P  and the Dominion Bond Rating Service (DRBS) rating agencies misrepresented the values of Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates issued by the Home Equity Mortgage Trusts. (Refer here for background regarding the lawsuit.)

The basis of the claims of liability against the rating agencies in the Home Equity Mortgage Trust lawsuit, as alleged in paragraph 87 of the complaint (here), is that  the rating agencies  “prepared valuations, i.e., assigned ratings to the Certificates, in connection with the Offering, as defined in Section 11 (a)(4) of the Securities Act.” These allegations are similar to the allegations against the credit rating agencies in the HarborView case discussed in my prior post.

Whether or not these cases against the credit rating agencies for their rating activities ultimately go forward remains to be seen. As I have previously discussed (here), the credit rating agencies will contend that their rating activities are protected by the First Amendment.

In addition, it remains to be seen whether the Home Equity Mortgage Trust case will go forward in state or federal court. As discussed at length in my prior post (here), the ’33 Act expressly provides for concurrent state court jurisdiction and also expressly proscribes removal of state court ’33 Act actions to federal court. As discussed here, in at least one case, a federal court has concluded that a ’33 Act claim that has been initiated in state court and removed to federal court must be remanded back to state court.

One More Note About the Fimalac Lawsuit:  Fimilac is a foreign-domiciled company whose shares do not trade on U.S. exchanges. Many of its shareholders obviously are domiciled outside the United States. If these non-U.S. shareholders were to be included in the class, the new class action complaint against Fimilac might present the complicated f-cubed litigant problem (which I discussed most recently here). However, the plaintiffs’ counsel in the Fimilac case purport to represent a class composed solely of U.S. residents, apparently as a way of avoiding the f-cubed litigant problem.

As I discussed in my recent post relating to the new securities class action filed against EADS (refer here), these attempts to plead around the issues involving foreign-domiciled  plaintiffs still test the outer limits of the jurisdictional reach of U.S. securities laws against foreign-domiciled companies whose shares do not trade on U.S. exchanges. The case against Fimilac will be interesting to watch for reasons other than the involvement of a credit rating agency.

And Finally: The news about the dismissal of the lawsuit against Richard Grasso has gained a great deal of press attention. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal, in a July 3, 2008 editorial (here), congratulates Grasso and fellow defendant Kenneth Langone for their success in fighting the lawsuit, which the Journal viewed as an example of the overreaching of former New York AG Eliot Spitzer.  

The Journal’s editorial is perhaps closest to the mark in its observation that “Mr. Grasso is fortunate he had the resources to fight back.” Had Grasso not had the wherewithal to resist, he might never have tasted vindication. Readers of this blog will be particularly interested to know that it was insurance funds – a very large amount of insurance funds – that ultimately allowed Grasso to succeed.

According to Langone, and as reported on Bloomberg (here), in defending themselves against the lawsuit, Grasso, Langone and the NYSE directors “spent more than $70 million fighting the case, all covered by insurance.”

So Grasso is indeed fortunate that he had the resources to fight back, but perhaps contrary to the Journal’s suggestion, and even Grasso’s own prior comments (refer here) it was not his own treasure that financed the fight.

The expenditure of the mind-boggling sum of $70 million in litigating this case is yet another reminder of the extraordinary costs associated with the kind of high stakes litigation in which directors and officers can become involved. As I recently noted (here), the escalating expense associated with this kind of litigation has important implications for limits adequacy assumptions.

While it may be that only extraordinary cases consume these astonishing quantities of money, a company’s D&O program is expected to be able to respond even to catastrophic claims. As seems to be increasingly apparent, the costs associated with just defending a catastrophic claim could exhaust many insurance programs. All of this may suggest the need to reexamine conventional assumptions about limits adequacy.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In a very interesting May 15, 2008 paper entitled “Do Options Backdating Cases Settle for Less?” (here), NERA Economic Consulting takes a look at the options backdating-related securities class action lawsuits settlements to date, and concludes that “in the cases that have settled to date, the amounts paid to plaintiffs have been substantially lower than in comparable non-backdating class actions.” NERA’s analysis is that the options backdating class action lawsuits are settling for half the amounts forecast by NERA’s own prediction model.

Having made this rather provocative observation, NERA then concedes that only a fraction of the options backdating-related securities class action lawsuits filed have yet settled. Clearly one factor that may be involved is that the weakest cases may have settled first, a consideration that the NERA study expressly acknowledges.

Nevertheless, in attempting to understand the variation between the settlements to date compared to the expected range of settlements based on NERA’s model, the NERA report does consider the possibility that “shareholder suits with backdating allegations are perceived as weaker on the merits than other class actions.” The report also considers the possibility that future options backdating settlements, which might include more serious cases, could be more in line with other securities class action settlements.

I have several observations about the NERA analysis, the first of which is that is important for all of us to keep a running tally of outcomes, to make sure we all know and keep track of what is happening. The fact that this study comes from NERA suggests that it will (appropriately) carry weight and credibility.

That said, it should also be noted that the NERA study is based on a small sample, only six settlements out of 37 options backdating related securities class action lawsuits. (The total number of lawsuits according to my tally, here, is only 36, but I am willing to go with their number for these purposes, which is close enough anyway.)

Not only is the sample small, but it seems to have been amputated at a couple of critical points. That is, for reasons that are not explained in the report, the NERA dataset does not include either the Mercury Interactive settlement ($117.5 mm) or the Vitesse Seminconduct settlement ($10.2 mm). If I know NERA, there are probably some very good reasons why they excluded these settlements, but the report does not explain or even refer to the omission of these settlements. Given the size of the Mercury Interactive settlement in particular, the omission of these settlements could have had a significant impact on the analysis, so their omission could be significant.

UPDATE: Dr. Branko Jovanovic, one of the author's of the NERA report, was kind enough to call me and politely point out that the report actually refers, in footnote 3, to the fact that the report's authors chose to exclude the Mercury Interactive and Vitesse Semiconductor settlements from the analysis because some but not all defendants had settled. (That's what I get for trying to write blog posts in a hotel room in Toronto without the ability to print out and read documents in hard copy form. Reading the report on a laptop screen, I just missed the footnote). Dr. Jovanovic points out that if the two settlements had been included, it would have increased the difference between expected and actual settlements.

The other thing about NERA’s analysis is that as a result of the small dataset, extreme individual results could be skewing the average. In particular, according to the report, the Rambus options backdating related securities class action lawsuit of $18 million, was only 8.3% of predicted. For me, an outlier result like that suggests that it is not representative, and in fact some case specific factor may explain the outcome. In any event, an extreme result like that clearly pulls down the average. While the exclusion of the Rambus result would still not eliminate the variation from the predicted range, it would reduce the difference.

I also think it is significant in considering whether the options backdating cases are or are not deviating from expectations that dismissals should be taken into account as well as settlements. According to my running tally of option backdating related settlements, dismissals and denials (which may be accessed here), six of the 37 (or is it 36?) options backdating related securities class action lawsuits have been dismissed. (Some of these dismissals are without prejudice). I am not 100% sure which way this cuts, but I think the number of dismissals is a relevant consideration to any analysis of whether or not outcomes are within predicted ranges. The dismissals may also provide some explanation, or at least context, for the variation between settlements to date and predicted ranges.

All of that said, I reiterate my appreciation to NERA for their effort to keep track of what has happened so far. The value of NERA’s analysis is in its provision of a status update, which is a sevice that we can all hope that NERA will continue as the cases develop.

For the sake of completeness, I urge all readers interested in these topics to review the analysis of options backdating securities class action settlements on the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here), which among other things notes that these cases are settling more quickly on average than other cases, which clearly might be a factor in explaining settlement outcomes. The SLW's analysis not only takes into account the settlements that NERA's report omits, but it also considers the dismissals as well.

One final observation is that NERA's analysis relates solely to options backdating securities class action settlements, and does not refer to or include options backdating derivative lawsuit settlements.  For further information regarding options backdating derivative lawsuit settlements, please refer to the table I am maintainting, here.

CFO.com has an article discussing the NERA report here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reflected in my running tally of options backdating lawsuit settlements (which can be accessed here), a number of the options backdating-related derivative lawsuits have settled for some combination of an agreement to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, some adjustment to the company officials’ options grants, and the company’s adoption of corporate governance reforms. But two April 7, 2008 opinions by Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court of the Northern District of California in separate options backdating derivative cases may raise potentially troublesome questions whether settlements in this form, without some cash payment directly to the corporation, are sufficient. As a minimum, the two opinions have important implications for the way settlements are presented to the court, and could also have important effects on the settlement dynamic in other cases going forward.

The first and most detailed of the two opinions relates to the options backdating derivative suit filed on behalf of Zoran Corporation, about which lawsuit I first wrote here. In a June 5, 2007 opinion in the Zoran case (here), Judge Alsup had previously denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, as I previously discussed here.

Following the dismissal denial, the parties to the Zoran case entered settlement negotiations, resulting in a February 26, 2008 stipulation of settlement, which the parties presented to the court on March 3, 2008. At the preliminary approval hearing, the plaintiffs’ damages expert, at the court’s request, presented a report calculating the plaintiffs’ maximum damages as $16 million (including prejudgment interest), which incorporated both the alleged damaged cause to company by the defendants’ option grants as well as by option grants to the rank-and-file employees.

The proposed Zoran settlement involved: the payment of up to $1.2 million of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs; the repricing or cancellation of certain of defendants’ options, which repricing or cancelation was represented to the court to have a value of $1.65 million; the company’s adoption of certain corporate governance reforms; and the grant of a broad claims release.

In an April 7, 2008 opinion (here) that contains some remarkably harsh language, Judge Alsup denied the parties’ request for preliminary approval of the settlement.

The parties undoubtedly knew the settlement was in trouble when Judge Alsup opened his analysis by stating that the class action procedure can “lend itself to abuse” and “one form of abuse is a collusive settlement.” Judge Alsup said that a collusive settlement “usually comes with a cash award to counsel, a broad release of claims, and a cosmetic non-cash recovery for the abused shareholders.” Courts, Judge Alsup notes, must take care that absent shareholders are treated fairly; here, he concludes, the settlement “falls short of deserving preliminary endorsement.”

In considering the settlement, Judge Alsup turned first to the substance of the plaintiffs’ claims (the implication being that the claims appeared to be meritorious), and to a declamation upon the plaintiffs’ expert’s $16 million damages estimate. Judge Alsup then addressed each of the settlement components, finding each component lacking.

First, Judge Alsup noted that the parties were not proposing to restore to the corporation the gains the defendants made from the sale of options, but rather that certain other options would be canceled or repriced. The option cancelation was represented to have very substantial value to the corporation, but the two sides’ experts had reached different conclusions about the value. Judge Alsup found that by using the most conservative valuation method and valuation date, the value of the cancellation was only $216,955, a small fraction of the value both sides had represented to the court.

The court next turned to the repriced options, with respect to which Judge Alsup noted, with incredulity, that the options had actually been repriced in December 2006, which was not only over a year before the settlement was presented to the court, but was even before the plaintiff filed the consolidated amended complaint. The court said that “it should have been plainly disclosed that the defendants were proposing to settle based on an old concession rather than a new consideration.” The court went on to note that “even if the flaw could somehow be ignored,” the value of the repriced options had been “exaggerated.” If a “meaningful” valuation date were used, the value of the repriced options is “zero.”

Judge Alsup had similar concerns with respect to the corporate governance reforms, in that several of the reforms “were already adopted by Zoran’s board well before the parties sat down to discuss settlement terms.” The reforms in any event “do not compensate the company for damages suffered by the company as a result of defendants’ backdating.” The reforms are “hard to accept in lieu of some substantial portion of the $16 million in damages asserted by the plaintiffs’ expert.” Judge Alsup also found that the claim release was overbroad, and swept in circumstances that were not asserted in the amended complaint.

In concluding that the settlement was inadequate, Judge Alsup stressed that “the corporation would recover no cash, all the cash is going to counsel,” and even the supposed value of the $16 million of the foregone benefits is “illusory” and he concluded that this “low end settlement” did not deserve approval.

Judge Alsup was clearly troubled that he had been obliged on his own to ferret out the settlement’s weaknesses, many of which were contrary to counsels’ representations.

Judge Alsup concluded his opinion with a rather stern lecture on counsels’ “duty of candor,” which he said requires counsel to “lay out the weaknesses as well as the strengths” of the settlement. He also stressed that it is “unfair to try to slip a weak or collusive settlement past the judge, hoping he or she will sign off or will not stumble upon the right questions.” A $1.65 million settlement, while at the low end, might be adequate, but the “main vice is that the proposal does not come even close to the $1.65 million settlement it was advertised to be.”

Many of the problems the court identified clearly were the result of communications issues. The parties perhaps could have avoided some of the difficulties by making joint valuation presentations that were scrubbed and scrutinized ahead of time. The court was also clearly upset to discover upon inquiry (rather than being told) that some of the remedies proposed had been undertaken prior to the settlement agreement; better communication around these settlement components potentially could have averted some of the court’s concerns.

But there are other aspects of the court’s commentary that are not merely the consequence of poor communication. First and foremost, Judge Alsup appeared to be troubled by how little the corporation would be getting, and in particular that the corporation would be getting no cash. He was also troubled that the settlement’s putative $1.65 million value, even if valid, was at the “low end” of plaintiffs’ damages analysis. In a sign that may have important implications for other settlements, he was also clearly skeptical that the noncash portions of the settlement – including even the corporate governance reforms, to which he attached little value --had value commensurate with the claimed injuries to the corporation.

But while there clearly are important implications from Judge Alsup’s ruling in the Zoran case, before fully considering those implications, it is important also to review Judge’s Alsup’s opinion (here), also dated April 7, 2008, in the CNET Networks options backdating-related derivative lawsuit, which provides even further context.

In his CNET Networks opinion, Judge Alsup refused even to consider the parties’ proposed settlement. Judge Alsup had previously granted defendants’ motion to dismiss (refer here), on the grounds that demand was not excused, but stayed the case to allow the plaintiffs to seek discovery through the Delaware courts and to attempt to replead. In response to an inquiry from the court about status, the parties advised the court that settlement negotiations were underway, and the parties then presented a joint motion to lift the stay for the limited purpose of seeking a preliminary approval of a settlement. Judge Alsup said that it found these actions “disappointing” because the parties did not, as they had represented to the court they would, complete discovery, nor did plaintiff file an amended complaint. Instead the parties sought to settle the case, about which Judge Alsup said

any settlement, at this early stage, seems very premature, for the Court could not be in a position to evaluate a settlement until we know what claims are viable and what depositions, discovery, and damage assessments show about the strength and magnitude of those claims. At this stage, moreover, plaintiff has no standing at all to negotiate on behalf of the corporation and its shareholders. Plaintiff has never been excused from the demand requirement. Plaintiff is not in any way authorized to release claims on behalf of any shareholders or the corporation. It would be hard to see how plaintiff could do so intelligently without first framing the claims and then performing sufficient due diligence through formal discovery and investigation, including a full damage report. Now, any legitimate settlement reached later may be tainted by what could appear to have been collusion. To deal with this eventuality, all notes and materials generated by or during the recent settlement discussions should be preserved. For the Court’s views on collusive settlements see In Re Zoran Corporation Derivative Litigation.

Judge Alsup went on to note that “the best way to tee up this case for settlement is to find out first whether the plaintiff even has standing to sue (the demand issue) and thus to release claims on behalf of the corporation,” and then to evaluate which options were backdated and the dollar value to the corporation of these claims. “It would,” Judge Alsup said, “be very hard to evaluate a settlement without due diligence, including depositions and documents.”

Judge Alsup’s two opinions taken together represent a strong statement that, because of the court’s responsibilities to absent class members, the court must take its obligation to review proposed settlements very seriously. The court clearly should not be expected just to rubber stamp a settlement to which the parties’ representatives have agreed. In order to get settlement approval, and avoid the suggestion of collusion, the parties will have to show certain key considerations: first, and at a minimum, that the plaintiff even has standing to represent the class and enter the settlement; second, that the settlement is proportionate to the injury to the corporation that the plaintiff has claimed; third, that the claimed values to the corporation are supported; and fourth, that the corporation is fairly compensated for its damages and its release of claims.

Even though Judge Alsup’s opinions technically have no precedential effect beyond the immediate cases themselves, the strength of the language he used, the seriousness of the concerns he noted, and the possibility of similar questions undermining other settlements could well have an in terrorem effect on other litigants in other cases. Certainly no litigant would want to take a chance that a court might suggest that their proposed settlement could be “collusive.” Even though many of the aspects of these opinions are a reflection of the particular circumstance involved, the opinions also bespeak more general principles that could have broad influence. In particular, Judge Alsup’s statement in the CNET Networks case that he could not even consider a proposed settlement until the plaintiff first establishes its right to enter a settlement and presents an adequate factual record and damages analysis suggests that cases must have progressed past a certain stage before the parties can even proffer a proposed settlement to the court.

There are several interrelated issues arising from Judge Alsup’s requirement for a damages analysis, his requirement that the settlement be proportionate to the alleged harm, and his obvious concern in the Zoran case that no cash was going to the corporation. The overall suggestion is that a few gestures and payment of some legal fees may not be enough. There may actually need to be some cash going to the corporation, proportionate to the alleged harm. Judge Alsup’s unwillingness to recognize significant value to the corporation for the corporate governance reforms may be particularly troublesome.

As I noted at the outset, many of the options backdating derivative cases that have been settled so far have been resolved on terms similar in many respects to the components of the Zoran settlement. The likely reason why there is no cash payment to the corporation in many of these cases is that D&O insurers balk at funding amounts they contend represent a disgorgement or a return of an ill-gotten gain. The individual defendants, for their part, resist making out of pocket payments for which insurance is unavailable. The parties thus perforce attempt to cobble together an agreement that resolves the case without any cash transfer other than the payment of plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees.

Judge Alsup’s opinion, particularly his repeated use of the word “collusive” and statement that the value to the corporation from the Zoran settlement was “illusory” could introduce a great deal of tension into this negotiation dynamic. Both insurance carriers and individuals could face heightened pressure to make cash contributions to the corporation to resolve these cases. Insurers will likely continue to resist any payment on their part, owing to policy exclusions for disgorgement and the return of ill-gotten gains.

Another important implication is that the parties must be prepared to substantiate their settlement, and that discovery, depositions, damages assessments and other procedures may be required to satisfy these requirements. These procedures could prove costly for all concerned – particularly for the D&O insurers, who not only will foot the bill for increased defense expense, but also ultimately could be called upon to pay the plaintiffs’ fees as well, as part of any eventual settlement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, of the parties involved, the participants that may face the biggest problems if these cases become more difficult to resolve are the plaintiffs’ lawyers. There is a suggestion in both of these cases that the plaintiffs’ lawyers are starting to find the cases tiresome and just want them to go away. Indeed, one of the things that clearly seemed to be bothering Judge Alsup in these cases is that the plaintiffs’ lawyers were settling (too) cheap or walking away without even doing what the Judge at least believes to be minimally required. The plaintiffs’ lawyers piled into these kinds of cases with enthusiasm but they may now be repenting their involvement. The implication of Judge Alsup’s opinion may be that the plaintiffs’ lawyers may be challenged to extricate themselves.

According to my tally (which can be found here), there have been a total of 166 options backdating lawsuits filed. To date, only a small portion of these cases (less than a third) have been settled or otherwise resolved. The vast majority, well over one hundred, of these cases remain pending. Of course it remains to be seen, but I suspect that Judge Alsup’s opinions in these two cases will prove to have introduced significant challenges for parties trying to move these pending cases toward resolution.

Very special thanks to Zusha Elinson of The Recorder for providing me with copies of these opinions. Elinson’s April 24, 2008 article in The Recorder about the opinions entitled “Alsup Rejects Easy Options Deals” can be found here (Full disclosure: I was interviewed in connection with the article).

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

In two recent federal district court decisions, two options backdating-related securities class action lawsuits – one involving Witness Systems and one involving Jabil Circuit – were dismissed.

First, in the Witness Systems case, on March 31, 2008, Judge Clarence Cooper of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, with prejudice. A copy of the Order can be found here. Background regarding the case can be found here.

The complaint alleged that seven options grants in 2000 and 2001 were backdated and that four grants in 2004 were springloaded. Oddly, the plaintiff alleged that he company’s financial statements during the period April 23, 2004 to August 11, 206 were misleading because of the 2000-2001 backdating. The allegedly misleading statements allegedly began earlier and continued through the class period.

Judge Cooper found that

Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient, particularized facts to support a “cogent and compelling” inference of scienter as to Witness or as to each Individual Defendant. Although the [amended complaint] is lengthy, the details contained therein are simply insufficient to support a strong inference of scienter. Specifically, the allegations are in the nature of a theory that Defendants must have known that the 2004 and 2005 financial statements were misstated due to backdating that occurred in 2000 and 2001. The [amended complaint] never explains when, or how, any or all Defendants learned about the circumstances pertaining to any backdated option grants. (Citations omitted.)

Judge Cooper went on to observe that “nothing is alleged that would demonstrate that these individuals had any knowledge that disclosures during the class period might require further adjustments based on options grants made in 2000 and 2001.”

Judge Cooper further found that the defendants’ stock sales did not support an inference of scienter. Judge Cooper specifically found that the defendants’ “pattern of regular dispostions was inconsistent with allegations of scienter, and the two defendants who sold significant share percentages only joined the company as a result of a merger after the alleged backdating. Judge Cooper also found that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled loss causation.

In the Jabil Circuit case, on April 9, 2008, Judge Steven Merryday of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, but with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have until May 12, 2008 to file an amended complaint. A copy of the April 9 order can be found here. Background regarding the Jabil Circuit case can be found here.

The Jabil Circuit case may be of some interest because the company was one of the several companies whose option grants were reflected in the charts that accompanied the  original March 18, 2006 Wall Street Journal article entitled “The Perfect Payday” (here) that launched the options backdating scandal.

The crux of Judge Merryday’s decision is his conclusion that the plaintiffs’ allegations failed to establish that any grant was backdated. Judge Merryday said:

Although the complaint specifies the offending statement and identifies when and where the defendants issued the statement, the complaint includes deficient allegations concerning the falsity of the statement. The plaintiffs purport to allege repeated instances of backdating by stating the dates of “suspiciously timed” option grants and the individual defendants who received the grants. However, the plaintiffs never allege the any specific grant of stock to any specific individual defendant was backdated. The issuance of suspiciously timed options fails to convert the [company’s compensation policy] representation into a false and misleading statement.

Having found that the complaint did not adequately allege backdating, Judge Merryday was able to dispose of plaintiffs’ allegations that the company had not properly accounted for the option grant or made misrepresentations when company officials later denied that there had been backdating.

Judge Merryday also found that the plaintiffs’ scienter allegations were insufficient because the complaints’ allegations of “knowledge of non-public information fails to raise an inference of scienter with respect to any defendant.” The insider trading allegations were insufficient because the complaint failed to allege the percentage of total shares sold or to compare the share sales to sales before and after the class period. The defendants’ alleged receipt of option grants was also found insufficient.

Judge Merryday also found that the complaint’s allegations of GAAP, IRS and SEC violations were insufficient “because the complaint fails to adequately allege a basis for the claim of backdating.” Similarly, with respect to the issue of loss causation, Judge Merryday found that “having failed to adequately allege the falsity of the backdating-related statements, the plaintiffs fail to sufficiently plead loss causation as to those statements.” Judge Merryday also rejected plaintiffs’ claims of proxy misstatements based on the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately allege backdating.

I have added these two dismissals to my table of options backdating lawsuit settlements, dismissals and denials, which can be accessed here. These two dismissals may be noteworthy because they appear to be the first options backdating securities lawsuit dismissals outside of the Ninth Circuit. They are also the first dismissals granted in an options backdating securities lawsuit in several months. But while some of these options backdating securities suits have now been resolved, many more remain pending.

As reflected on my running tally of the options backdating lawsuit filings (which can be found here), there were a total of 36 options backdating-related securities class action lawsuits filed. And as reflected in my table of options backdating lawsuit case dispositions (linked above), of these 36 cases, eight have settled, six have had their motions to dismiss denied, and five have been dismissed (albeit some with leave to amend). That leave 17 cases on which no action has yet been taken, and with the six dismissal denials, 23 cases that remain pending – not to mention the cases on which amended pleadings or appeals may give new life.

These cases appear to have a very long way to run yet. But the high degree of skepticism shown in these two opinions is striking, and would not bode well for these cases were this general view to become widespread.

Special thanks to an alert reader who prefer anonymity for providing copies of the two opinions.

Another Subprime-Related D&O Loss Estimate: On April 9, 2008, Fitch’s Ratings released a report entitled “Subprime Mortgage Exposure for Property/Casualty Insurers.” A link to the repor can be found in this Business Insurance article (here), but registration is required for access to the report.

The report repeats prior estimates of industry-wide insured subprime-related losses in the range of $3 to $4 billion (although also noting that estimates have ranged as high as $9 billion). The report states that “Fitch believes that the majority of these losses will be borne by the larges writers of primary and excess D&O.”

The report also states that “Fitch believes that the near-term impact from the subprime issues will have a stabilizing or modestly positive effect on professional liability rates, especially within the financial services sector, but are unlikely to result in broad hardening.” The report warns though that “if the credit contagion spreads into sectors not directly tied to the subprime mortgage market or if the weakening economy leads to increased bankruptcies, current loss estimates will prove to be inadequate and there could be adverse reserve development that could have a larger impact on rates going forward.”

Fitch’s estimates and comments are largely in line with prior D&O loss estimate, about which I previously commented here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Amidst all the subprime hoopla, it would be easy to forget that only a year ago, options backdating was the hot topic. Options backdating might now seem passé, but several considerations suggest that options backdating remains important and that we still have a long way to go before we can be sure we have seen all of the options backdating scandal fallout.

Accumulating Lawsuits: The first important consideration about options backdating in early 2008 is that the options backdating related lawsuits are still coming in. As I previously noted (here), last month shareholders filed an options-backdating related securities class action lawsuit against Teletech Holdings.

In addition, on February 6, 2008, plaintiffs' lawyers announced (here) that they had initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Maxim Integrated Products and certain of its directors and officers. The lawsuit relates to Maxim's January 17, 2008 announcement (here) that, as a result of its Board's special committee's investigation of the company's stock option practices, the company would be restating its financial statements to record non-cash, pre-tax charges of between $550 and $650 million for additional stock-based compensation expense. The company also announced that investors should not rely on the company's financial statements for the fiscal years 1997 through 2005 and corresponding interim reporting periods through March 25, 2006.

The timing of Maxim's recent announcement is relevant here. The company had first announced its anticipated restatement nearly a year prior, in January 2007 (here), and the company's January 2008 announcement indicated that the company's review was not only not yet complete, but would have to be expanded backwards to include its 1995 and 1996 fiscal years. Maxim is surely not the only company that continues to struggle with the accounting clean-up from options backdating-related issues. There may well be additional options backdating related lawsuits filed in the months ahead.

But in any event, with the addition of the Maxim Integrated Products lawsuit to my running tally of options backdating related lawsuits (which can be found here), the current total number of options backdating related class action lawsuits now stands at 36. These 36 class action lawsuits are in addition to the 166 options backdating related derivative lawsuits that have also been filed.

Accumulating Settlements: The second important consideration about options backdating in early 2008 is that the settlements of the options backdating related cases are accumulating in a material way. Indeed, on February 8, 2008, HCC Insurance Holdings announced (here) that it had settled the options backdating-related securities class action lawsuit that had been filed against the company and certain of its directors and officers, for a payment of $10 million dollars (to be funded entirely by insurance). The company had previously announced on January 9, 2008 (here) that it had settled the options backdating related derivative lawsuit in which the company was involved, in exchange for an agreement to adopt certain governance reforms and the payment of $3 million of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

As reflected in my table of options backdating-related lawsuits dismissals, denials and settlements (which can be accessed here), the HCC settlement represents the seventh of the options backdating-related securities class action lawsuits to settle. The aggregate amount of these seven settlements is $244.55 million. Three other options backdating-related securities class action lawsuits have also been dismissed, meaning that at this point, ten of the 36 options backdating related securities lawsuits have either settled or dismissed, with another 26 yet to be resolved.

As also reflected on my list of options backdating related case dispositions, there have also been a number of options backdating related derivative settlements. The value of some of these settlements has not publicly disclosed, but the value of the disclosed settlements - not counting the $900 million UnitedHealth Group derivative settlement - is over $61 million.
The sum of the value of these two categories of options backdating-related lawsuit settlements is over $300 million - and if the UnitedHealth Group settlement is included, the total value so far is over $1.3 billion. (It should be kept in mind that these figures do not reflect the derivative settlements that were not publicly disclosed). Of course, these figures do not include the costs the companies incurred to defend these cases, as well as to defend themselves and their senior officials against SEC investigations and other regulatory and criminal matters. And, perhaps most significantly here, there are many more of these cases yet to be resolved than have so far been settled or dismissed.

The Securities Litigation Watch blog has a more detailed analysis of the options backdating securities class action settlements here.

I have gone through this exercise to point out that when all is said and done, the options backdating scandal is going to have proven to have had a very significant event. While not all of the settlement and amounts and defense expenses represent covered loss (for example, the UnitedHealth Group would appear to be excluded from coverage under the typical D & O insurance policy), much of these amounts will be paid by D & O insurers.

As is clear from the fact that options backdating related lawsuits continue to emerge, and the fact that the vast majority of the options backdating-related cases are yet to be resolved, D & O insurers are going to continue to incur these losses for some time to come. And while it can certainly be hoped that the insurers' reserving practices fully anticipate future developments in these cases (and the cases yet to emerge), the possibility that options backdating might be a bigger deal than everyone has been assuming right now cannot be overlooked.

This analysis of the options backdating-related cases provides some significant context for the current rapidly unfolding subprime-related litigation wave. By any measure, the subprime wave represents a bigger threat than the options backdating related cases. There are going to be many more subprime-related securities class action lawsuits (right now, there are 43 subprime-related securities lawsuits vs. the 36 options backdating related securities lawsuits, and the subprime related lawsuits are going to be rolling in for the rest of this year and probably into the next); the subprime cases involve much more significant shareholder losses; the subprime cases will be very expensive to defend; and, due to their complexity, the subprime cases will take a long time to resolve.

Bottom line: the options backdating scandal and the subprime meltdown together represent adverse circumstances for D & O insurers - something you would never be able to discern from the current marketplace conditions.

Special thanks to Adam Savett of the Securities Litigation Watch for the link to the HCC settlement and for suggesting to me the aggregation of the options backdating related class action settlements.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It has been such a while since a new options backdating securities lawsuit has appeared that it was with some surprise I noted the new case that has been filed against Teletech Holdings and certain of its directors and officers. According to the plaintiffs' counsel's January 25, 2008 press release (here), the lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, relates to the company's November 8, 2007 press release (here), in which the company announced a "self-initiated review of accounting for equity-based compensation practices and likely restatement of prior period financial statements."

According to the company's filing on Form 8-K (here), also dated November 8, the company delayed the filing of its quarterly report for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, due to the company's Audit Committee's review of the company's "historical stock option and other equity-based compensation grant practices." The filing also states that based on the review completed to date, "management presently believes that it will be required to incur additional non-cash compensation charges for prior periods and that restatement of interim and annual financial statements for the periods 1999 through 2007 is likely." The filing also states that the company's interim and annual financial statements for the period 1999 through the second quarter of 2007 "should not be relied upon."

In light of the TeleTech lawsuit's allegations, I have, somewhat unexpectedly as this late date, amended my tally of options backdating-related lawsuits. The tally can be found here. With the addition of the TeleTech lawsuit, my count of options backdating-related securities lawsuits stands at 35.

Finding Orwell: I read with interest in the January 23, 2008 Wall Street Journal profile (here) of newly-appointed U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey that when he was a federal judge, Mukasey would require his new law clerks to read George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language." Orwell's essay, which can be found here, is a declamation against the "vagueness and sheer incompetence" that Orwell believed to characterize contemporary prose, particularly political writing.

Orwell wrote that "the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting ink."

After providing many examples of bad writing, Orwell reduced his principles for clear writing to six rules, which undoubtedly are the reason Mukasey required his law clerks to read the essay. The six rules are:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbaric.

The interior was dark and cool. The front room was crammed with wooden furniture. An empty teacup sat on the arm of an old planter's chair and the glass-fronted book cabinets were filled with old newspapers, their corners orange and crackling with age. Two grandfather clocks stood in opposite corners, each telling a different time.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In its January 24, 2008 quarterly earnings release (here), KLA-Tencor also announced that it had entered into an agreement to settle the options backdating-related securities class action lawsuit that had been pending against the company and certain of its directors and officers for $65 million.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A shareholders' derivative lawsuit that generated the most prominent judicial pronouncements about options "springloading" has been settled. According to the company's January 18, 2008 press release (here) and its filing on Form 8-K of the same date (here), the parties have settled the consolidated shareholders' derivative lawsuit that has been been pending since 2005 against Tyson Foods, as nominal defendant, and certain present and former directors and officers of the company.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement (here), Don Tyson (the company's former CEO) and the Tyson Limited Partnership, the Company's largest shareholder are jointly and severally liable to pay the company $4.5 million. No other defendant will make any payments. The company also agreed to implement or continue certain governance measures, as detailed in the settlement agreement. The plaintiffs will be seeking a fee award of $3 million from the company, out of the $4.5 million to be paid under the settlement. The Company has said it will contest the fee award, but will not contest any award up to $1 million.

The derivative complaint contained a variety of allegations, only some of them relating to the timing of the company's stock option grants. Other allegations related to certain consulting contracts, as well as to executive compensation and related-party transactions involving Tyson and his family. But what has drawn notoriety to the case are the complaint's allegations concerning options "springloading" (that is, the award of options in anticipation of an event expected to trigger an increase in the company's stock price). The opinions in the case regarding springloading are undoubtedly represent the leading judicial commentary on the practice.

In opinions dated February 6, 2007 (here), and August 15, 2007 (here), Chancellor William B. Chandler III used memorably scathing language in denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the springloading allegations. Among other things, Chandler said that in the August 15 opinion that the company's proxy disclosure describing the options grants displayed "an uncanny parsimony with the truth" that "raise an inference that the directors engaged in later dissembling to hide earlier subterfuge."

Chancellor Chandler added that he "may further infer that grants of springloaded options were both inherently unfair to shareholders" and that "the long-term nature of the deceit involved suggests a scheme inherently beyond the bounds of business judgment." He added that the Court "may reasonably infer that a board of directors later concealed the true nature of a stock option," from which it may further infer that the options "were not granted consistent with a fiduciary's duty of utmost loyalty."

My prior more detailed discussion of Chandler's August 15 opinion can be found here.

The settlement is of course still subject to court approval, a condition that may be a relevant consideration in this case, given the seeming disparity between the flights of the Court's rhetoric and the scale of the settlement.

In any event, I have added the Tyson Foods settlement to my list of options backdating lawsuit settlements, dismissals and denials, which can be accessed here.

A January 21, 2008 CFO.com article further discussing the Tyson Foods settlement can be found here.

Supreme Court Rejects Enron Appeal: Less than a week after issuing the Stoneridge decision, the Supreme Court has denied (here) the petition for writ of certiorari in the case Enron investors had brought against a number of investment banks. News coverage of the denial can be found here and here.

As noted in the 10b-5 Daily blog (here), the Supreme Court also vacated and remanded to the Ninth Circuit the "scheme liability" case of Avis Budget Group v. California State Teachers Retirement, "for further consideration" in light of the Stoneridge decision.

While the Enron cert petition denial was probably inevitable after the Stoneridge decision, it is also dicey to read too much into the denial. For example, as the Conglomerate blog points out (here), the Enron case was in an odd procedural posture, having come up to the Supreme Court from the Fifth Circuit where it was on an interlocutory appeal after the denial of class certification. The Supreme Court does not have to explain itself when it declines to act. The lower courts will have to live with the Stoneridge decision and work out its meaning in the context of specific cases without further guidance from the Supreme Court, for now.

Professor Larry Ribstein has further thoughts about the meaning (and limitations on the meaning) of the Enron cert petition denial on his Ideoblog, here. The SEC Actions blog, here, finds greater significance to the Supreme Court's actions in the wake of Stoneridge. The WSJ.com Law Blog has more "post-game" analysis on the Enron cert petition denial, here.

More About the Subprime Litigation Wave: Way back in July 2007, when I declared (here) that subprime litigation was "this year's model" (that is, the hot litigation trend driving lawsuit activity), I noted that "subprime litigation is arising in an ever-increasing variety of additional forms" and that "as the concentric rings from asset valuation issues spread outward, an increasing array of companies will become engulfed in the litigation wave."

Sounding similar themes in a January 22, 2008 article entitled "If Everyone's Finger-Pointing, Who's To Blame?"(here), the New York Times observed that

a wave of lawsuits is beginning to wash over the troubled mortgage market and the rest of the financial world. Homeowners are suing mortgage lenders. Mortgage lenders are suing Wall Street banks. Wall Street banks are suing loan specialists And investors are suing everyone.

The article mentions a number of different cases, including in particular a case brought last week by the Maher family against Lehman Brothers Holdings. The lawsuit is described in greater detail in the a January 18, 2008 Bloomberg.com article entitled "Lehman Clients Demand $1.1 Billion on Auction Dispute" (here). The allegations have been brought by two brothers, Brian and Basil Mahan, in an arbitration complaint filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

The complaint alleges that the brothers relied on Lehman to invest proceeds from the family's sale of its ship container company, claiming that the family's stated investment objectives were to preserve capital and provide liquidity. Lehman allegedly put the money in auction-rate securities, which lost value due to the turmoil in the credit markets. The brothers seek to require Lehman to buy the illiquid securities and pay treble damages of $857 million. The complaint accuses Lehman of negligence, deception, breach of contract, making unsuitable investments, and supervisory failures.

Thanks to the several readers who sent me copies of or links to the New York Times article.

Now This: The turbulence in the financial markets is scary enough in and of itself. Of perhaps even greater concern is what it may signify. George Soros, the Chairman of Soros Fund Management, suggests in a column in the January 23, 2007 Financial Times (here) that we now face "The Worst Market Crisis in 60 Years."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On December 6, 2007, UnitedHealth Group announced (here) that its Special Litigation Committee had concluded its review of claims relating to the company's option backdating practices that had been brought against certain of the company's directors and officers.

The company also announced that its former CEO William McGuire had agreed surrender certain rights and interests which, together with previous repricing of all stock options awarded to McGuire, have a value in excess of $600 million.

Certain other current and former officers also agreed to relinquish certain rights and repay other amounts, which in combination with the repricing of certain stock option, have a value of approximately $300 million.

According to the company's statement:

The SLC has valued the total amounts to be relinquished pursuant to these settlement agreements, together with the value previously and voluntarily relinquished by current and former executives, through the surrender and repricing of options, to be approximately $900 million.

A December 6, 2007 Bloomberg.com article (here) states that "if approved by a court, the settlement ...would be the largest ever in a 'derivative' suit...according to data compiled by Bloomberg."

Separately, the SEC announced on December 6, 2007 (here) that it had reached a $468 million enforcement action settlement with McGuire, which, the SEC said, includes the "largest penalty assessed against an individual in an options backdating case." The $468 million SEC settlement consists of "a $7 milllion civil penalty and reimbursement to the Minneapolis-based health care company for all incentive- and equity-based compensation he received from 2003 through 2006."

The SEC's press release also stated that the McGuire settlement "is the first with an individual under the 'clawback' provision (Section 304) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to deprive corporate executives of their stock sale profits and bonuses earned while their companies were misleading investors."

According to UnitedHealth's press release, McGuire's settlement consists of the following elements:

• Surrender to UnitedHealth Group certain stock options to acquire 9,223,360 shares of Company stock, which the SLC has valued at approximately $320 million;


• Surrender his interest in the Company's Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, valued at approximately $91 million;


• Surrender to the Company approximately $8 million in his Executive Savings Plan Account; and


• Relinquish claims to other post-employment benefits under his Employment Agreement.

According to the company. these amounts, combined with a previous repricing of all stock options awarded to Dr. McGuire from 1994 to 2002, result in a total value to be relinquished by McGuire in excess of $600 million.

A copy of McGuire's settlement agreement with the company and the derivative plaintiffs can be found here.

The UnitedHealth press release described the settlement with the company's former General Counsel, David Lubben, as consisting of the surrender to UnitedHealth Group of his stock options to acquire 273,000 shares of Company stock, which the SLC valued in excess of $3 million; and the repayment to the Company $20.55 million of the compensation realized by him as a result of his March 2007 exercise of stock options.

According to the company, these amounts, combined with a previous repricing of stock options awarded to Lubben, result in a total value relinquished by Lubben of approximately $30 million.

A copy of the settlement agreement between Lubben and the company and the derivative plaintiffs' counsel can be found here.

The UnitedHealth press release also stated that under the settlement agreement that the company reached with its former director William Spears, "the fair settlement value of the Company's claims ... will be determined by binding arbitration."

According to the Bloomberg article, current United Health CEO Stephen J. Helmsley had agreed to repay $240 million, although the company apparently says he voluntarily did so months ago.

A copy of the UnitedHealth special litigation committee's December 6, 2007 report can be found here.

The Wall Street Journal's December 7, 2007 article discussing the settlement can be found here.

Special thanks to alert reader Kelly Reyher for sending alerting me to this story and sending along the Bloomberg link.

The magnitude of these settlements is obviously arresting. The scale of the settlements is proportionate to the scale of the backdating problems at UnitedHealth, which had forced the company to restate $1.13 billion in earnings over a 12-year period. The scale of these settlements could have a significant impact on at least some of the other pending options backdating derivative cases, particularly where the company has been forced to restate and where top company officials have personally benefited from the backdating.

Readers should note that the table I am maintaining of all options backdating related settlements, dismissals and denials can be accessed here.

From a D & O insurance perspective, it is noteworthy that all or virtually all of the amounts to be paid to the company or to the SEC may be characterized as disgorgement, return of ill-gotten gains, return of compensation to which the individual was not legally entitled, or fines and penalties. Assuming that these are in fact accurate characterizations of the settlement payments, these amounts would not constitute covered loss under the typical D & O insurance policy.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As the options backdating cases flooded in a year ago, the standard explanation of the plaintiffs' lawyers preference for shareholders derivative lawsuits over securities class action lawsuits was that stock price declines rarely accompanied companies' options backdating disclosures. (A list showing the predominance of derivative lawsuits among options backdating cases can be found here.) Any doubts about the challenge that the absence of a stock price drop poses for erstwhile options backdating securities class action litigants should be put to rest by the November 14, 2007 opinion (here) dismissing the options backdating-related securities class action lawsuit pending against Apple and 14 of its current and former directors and officers. Background on the lawsuit can be found here.