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

As the subprime litigation wave has churned on, many of the more recently filed lawsuits have been similar to previously filed suits. But amidst the repetition, there has also been some innovation, or at least variation, as a result of which the subprime litigation wave has continued to evolve. Two recently filed subprime and credit crisis- related lawsuits demonstrate both of these elements.

Fannie Mae Secondary Offering Litigation: First, on August 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a purported securities class action under Section 12(a)(2) of the ’33 Act, in the New York (New York County) Supreme Court, in connection with the May 9, 2008 secondary offering of Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) A copy of the complaint can be found here.

The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of all purchasers who bought Fannie Mae shares in the May 9 offering, in which the company sold approximately 94 million shares at $27.50 a share. (The shares closed today at $7.69.) Interestingly, Fannie Mae itself is not named as a defendant. The plaintiffs have named defendants only the offering underwriters, Lehman Brothers, J.P. Morgan and Citigroup.

The complaint alleges that the offering documents failed to disclose a pending change to FAS 140, which change if adopted, the complaint alleges, "could require the Company to raise as much as $46 billion of capital in order to remain in compliance" with its regulatory capital requirements. The complaint alleges that FAS 140 had previously allowed Fannie Mae to account for its liabilities for mortgage-backed securities issued by the company as if the company had sold the securities, even though the company was still obligated to guarantee the securities against defaults in the underlying assets. The supposed pending changes would require Fannie Mae to account on its balance sheet for these now off-balance sheet liabilities.

The complaint alleges that the offering documents had stated that upon the successful completion of the offering, the company’s capital requirements would be reduced. The complaint alleges that in July 2008, well after the offering’s completion, an analyst for Lehman Brothers (which was also one of the offering underwriters) issued a report disclosing the pending changes and the supposed impact on the company’s need for as much as $46 billion additional capital. The complaint alleges that in the week following the report, Fannie Mae’s share price dropped from $18.76 per share to $7.07 a share.

There are a number of curious things about this complaint. The first is that the complaint names only the offering underwriters as defendants; it does not name Fannie Mae itself. I expect this is because in connection with this firm commitment offering, the offering underwriters were the actual "sellers." (The complaint alleges that the underwriters, who directly bought the shares from the company, were "directly responsible for the offering and sale" of the shares to the market.) This would perhaps explain why the plaintiffs sought to pursue their Section 12 claim only against the underwriters, but it does not clarify why the plaintiffs did not also include in their complaint a Section 11 claim against Fannie Mae or other defendants.

UPDATE: Please note the reader comment below explaining that the May offering was an unregistered equity offering, and as such there was no registration statement -- hence no Section 11 claim. As an aside, I note that I am always grateful when a reader provides this kind of clarifying information. I hope that all readers will lelt me know when statements on this blog are in need of clarification or correction.  

The other interesting thing is that plaintiffs have chosen to proceed in state court rather than federal court. I have previously noted (here) the apparent interest of some plaintiffs’ lawyers as part of the current litigation wave to pursue ’33 Act claims in state court, and I have also noted that plaintiffs have had some success in having these cases remanded back to state court in opposition to defendants’ efforts to remove them to federal court. Even though this most recent lawsuit asserts claims only under Section 12, it apparently continues the developing trend of plaintiffs pursuing ’33 Act actions (primarily Section 11 actions) in state court.

Jurisdiction for ’33 Act actions is concurrent, meaning that plaintiffs have a choice and they are consciously choosing to proceed in state court. I have previously speculated (here) that the decision to proceed in state court represents some form of forum shopping, or perhaps a bid to avoid the requirements of the PSLRA. Whatever the reason, the court selection appears calculated and tactical, much like the decision in this case to assert claims only against the offering underwriters and only under Section 12.

Special thanks to Adam Savett of the Securities Litigation Watch for the complaint in this Fannie Mae Secondary Offering lawsuit.

Stifel Financial Auction Rate Securities Litigation: The second of these two recent lawsuits is a purported securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of all persons who purchased auction rate securities from Stifel Financial (or its affiliate, Stifel Nicolaus & Company) between June 11, 2003 and February 13, 2008. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

As I have noted (here), there have been many of these auction rate securities class action lawsuits filed. By my count, about which refer below, Stifel and its affiliate are the eighteenth different set of defendants to be separately named in an auction rate securities class action lawsuits.

What makes this complaint noteworthy is not its allegations, which are virtually identical to those raised in the earlier auction rate securities lawsuits. Rather, what makes this complaint noteworthy is its timing. There were a flood of these auction rate securities lawsuits filed in March and April 2008, but the filings tapered off after that. The most recent of these auction rate securities class action lawsuits, as near as I can determine, was filed in May 2008.

The other interesting element of the lawsuit’s timing is that it comes now, shortly after the largest financial institutions have entered settlements in which the big banks have agreed to massive buy backs of these securities from retail investors (refer here). As I noted in a recent post (here), even though these settlements might have seemed to suggest that the auction rate securities mess was winding wrapping up, the lawsuits relating to the securities continue to accumulate. Notwithstanding the settlements involving the largest banks, problems with these securities continue, and the related lawsuits continue to be filed.

A copy of an August 13, 2008 St. Louis Business Journal article relating to the new Stifel Financial lawsuit can be found here.

 Run the Numbers: In any event, I have added these two new lawsuits to my running tally of the subprime and credit crisis-related securities lawsuits, which can be accessed here.

With the addition of these two new lawsuits, the current tally of the subprime and credit crisis-related securities lawsuits now stands at 105, of which 65 were filed in 2008. As noted above, there have been 18 separate sets of defendants sued in auction rate securities class action lawsuits.

Subprime Coverage: Accompanying this litigation wave is the related question of insurance coverage for these lawsuits. Matthew Jacobs, Lorelie Masters and David Weiner of Jenner & Block have written an article in the July/August 2008 issue of Coverage entitled "Insurance Coverage and the Subprime Crisis: A Broad Overview" (here), which provides a comprehensive overview of the subprime litigation and the related insurance issues, from a policyholder perspective. The article is comprehensive and well-written, and raises a number of useful and interesting observations about the subprime-related coverage issues.

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

After New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced (here) earlier today that Citigroup had agreed to a blockbuster settlement regarding auction rate securities, it certainly seemed like the deal would put pressure on other investment banks to adopt similar measures. So perhaps it was not unexpected later in the day that Merrill Lynch announced (here) that it too would "buy back at par auction rate securities sold by it to its retail clients."

If Merrill Lynch’s response is any indication, other banks and broker-dealers may also now find themselves pressured to buy back auction rate securities from their retail clients at par. UPDATE: It appears that UBS got the memo, too; the August 8, 2008 headlines include reports that UBS will be entering its own deal today with state and federal regulators (refer here). There were quite a number of other features to Citigroup’s settlement beyond the retail investor buy back. In addition, Citigroup not only settled with the NY AG, but also preliminarily settled with the SEC as well, as discussed in the SEC’s August 7, 2008 press release (here).

Other companies that want the same degree of resolution as Citigroup may have to swallow many if not all of the terms to which Citigroup agreed, so the entire package is worth a closer look.

Without access to all of the settlement documents, it is not possible to obtain a complete understand of everything to which Citigroup agreed. But there is a great deal of information in NYAG’s and SEC press releases linked above, as well as Citigroup’s own press release about the settlement (here).

The major components of the deal are that Citigroup will buy back at par $7.5 billion in auction rate securities that it sold to individual investors, small business and charities. In addition, Citigroup agreed to use its "best efforts" to liquidate another $12 billion in auction rate securities sold to retirement plans and institutional investors by the end of 2009.

Citigroup also agreed to pay the state of New York a civil penalty of $50 million, and to pay a separate civil penalty of $50 million to the North American Securities Administrators, which, according to the NYAG’s press release, has had a task force conducting investigations into the marketing and sale of auction rate securities.

Beyond these basic outlines, there are a number of other terms designed to make investors whole.

First, Citigroup will, according to the NYAG, "fully reimburse all retail investors who sold their auction rate securities at a discount after the market failed."

Second, as described in the SEC press release, "until Citi actually provides for the liquidation of the securities…Citi will provide no-cost loans to customers that will remain outstanding until all the ARS are repurchased, and will reimburse customers for any interest costs incurred under any prior loan program."

Third, according to the SEC, "Citi will not liquidate its own inventory of a particular ARS before it liquidates its own customers’ holding in that security."

Fourth, in one of the deal’s more interesting components, Citigroup agreed that (according to the SEC press release, which has the best description of this component) with respect to any customer who contends that he or she has "incurred consequential damages beyond the loss of liquidity," that it will participate in a "special arbitration process that the customer may elect and that will be overseen by FINRA." In these proceedings, Citigroup "will not contest liability for its misrepresentations and omissions…but may challenge the existence or amount of any consequential damages." Customers who elect not to participate in these special procedures "may pursue all other arbitration or legal of equitable remedies available through any other administrative or judicial process."

Fifth, with respect to its investment bank clients, according to Citigroup’s press release, "Citi will refund refinancing fees to municipal ARS issuers that issued ARS in the primary market between August 1, 2007 and February 11, 2008, and refinanced those securities after February 11, 2008."

The SEC’s press release emphasizes that Citigroup’s settlement with the SEC is "preliminary" and that the company "faces the prospect of a financial penalty to the SEC after it has completed its obligations under the settlement agreement." The amount of the penalty if any will be based on an assessment "whether Citi has satisfactorily completed its obligations under the settlement," as well as the costs Citi incurred in meeting those obligations.

With respect to the issue of costs to Citigroup, the company itself noted that the financial impact it would sustain as a result of acquiring the $7.3 billion of its retail investors’ auction rate securities "is expected to be de minimus." The company estimates that the difference between the purchase price and the market price is ‘in the range of $500 million on a pretax basis," although the actual pre-tax loss will depend on market values at the time of purchase.

Citigroup did not attempt to estimate the costs to the company of its commitment to use its "best efforts" to liquidate its institutional investors $12 billion in auction rate securities. Nor does its press release reflect an estimate of the costs to the company of the various provisions designed to make its retail and investment bank customers whole. The "consequential damages" arbitrations could be particularly interesting in the respect, and I am guessing these proceedings will also involve some pretty elaborate allegations. Given the marketplace's reaction to the settlement announcement -- Citigroup's stock closed down 6.24% today -- the perception seems to be that the overall costs will something more than "de minimum."

It is worth noting that the $12 billion retail investor buy back that Merrill Lynch announced today, while clearly designed to try to ingratiate the company to regulators and to try to buy the company some room to maneuver, acknowledged only one part of the Citigroup’s multi-component settlement. Merrill’s initiative lacked any provision for liquidation of institutional investors’ holdings, and it similarly lacked any of the "make whole" components of the Citigroup settlement. Regulators will undoubtedly press Merrill for similar concessions.

Whatever the aggregate costs to Citigroup of the settlement announced today will ultimately be depends to an enormous extent on whether this settlement, and the others that undoubtedly will be reached in the coming days and weeks, are collectively enough to melt the frozen auction rate securities market. At this point, nobody is buying the securities because they don’t want to get stuck with an asset they can’t turn around and sell if they have to. But if confidence does return, the banks and other companies will be able either to hold these newly acquired assets on their balance sheets at par, rather than at a discount, or to sell the assets in an orderly marketplace at reasonable marketplace prices.

On the other hand, it is possible that all that is happening is that the problems are being shifted around. The banks will have to be taking on to their balance sheets a huge quantity of illiquid assets at a time when their balance sheets are already under pressure. All of them will face the same desire, and perhaps need, to sell these assets, at the same time that they will also be under pressure to use their "best efforts" to help their institutional investor clients unload their holdings. These arrangements address the retail investors problems (which is fair, appropriate and necessary, from both a practical and prudential standpoint), but the other problems are not yet solved, and they will not be finally solved until there are as many interested buyers as they are eager would-be sellers. And these arrangements certainly bake in a host of holders who will want to be sellers.

The key component of the settlement may be the "best efforts" provision pertaining to institutional investors, which Citigroup described in its press release as follows:

Citi will work with issuers and other interested parties to provide liquidity solutions for Citi institutional investor clients. In doing so, Citi will use its best efforts to facilitate issuer redemptions and/or to resolve its institutional investor clients' liquidity concerns through resecuritizations and other means. The New York Attorney General will monitor Citi's progress and, beginning on November 4, 2008, retains the right to take legal action against Citi with respect to its institutional investor clients. The other regulators have entered into a similar arrangement but with a December 31, 2009 date.

If these efforts prosper, they may go a long way toward restoring an efficient marketplace for these securities. The problem is that, without a funtioning marketplace, it is not immediately apparent (at least from this brief description), how institutional investors' "liquidity concerns" will be resolved, short of Citigroup itself buying out the institutional investors too --although to my eyes at least this "best efforts" stops short of a firm buyout commitment.

It may be that a Citigroup buyout of institutional investors is implied in this "best efforts" provision, especially given the looming threat of further state regulatory action, amoint to an implicit buyout commitment. To the extent other banks provide similar commitments, it might well be enough to unfreeze the marketplace for these securities. Which unquestionably would be a good thing for all concerned. The risk of course is that the banks could wind up holding a pile of assets nobody else wants.

There are many unanswered questions. One of the more practical questions is what the Citigroup settlement announced today will do for the private auction rate securities litigation pending against the company (about which refer here). The settlement clearly seems calculated to try to make at least the retail investors whole, and at least for those retail investors who are comfortable with the special "consequential damages" procedure, there would seem to be no point for continuing the class action (although I would be interested to know if readers have a different perspective). Institutional investors may well have another view, particularly until it is known whether Citigroup’s "best efforts" to liquidate the investors’ auction rate securities holding are successful.

The Citigroup settlement was discussed in a number of news articles today, including articles appearing on CFO.com (here) and Bloomberg (here).

Or is the Worst Yet to Come?: Coincidentally, my friends Kimberly Melvin and Cara Tseng Duffield of the Wiley Rein law firm published a memorandum today whose title seems even more provocative in light of today’s development. Their memo, entitled "Auction Rate Securities: Is the Worst Yet to Come?" (here), has a detailed overview of the outstanding claims involving auction rate securities that is informative and useful.

The memo was written prior to and therefore without awareness of the Citigroup settlement, The memo still makes for interesting reading. Among other things, the memo contains a number of interesting observations concerning the insurance implications of the ARS claims. The authors note that because many of the ARS claims arise out of the defendant companies’ investment sales activities, the claims likely do not represent D&O insurance losses; rather the claims "appear to represent primarily E&O exposures."

Finally, and pertinent to the Citigroup settlement, the authors note that "to the extent that the investment banks buy back or rescind their customers’ ARS, thereby receiving the securities in return for par value, issues exist regarding whether the banks have suffered a covered loss."

I Never Really Wanted to Sell CDOs, I Wanted to be a Lumberjack: And now, for something completely different, I recommend Mark Gilbert’s August 7, 2008 Bloomberg column entitled "CDO Market is Dead, Not Just Pining for Fjords" (here).

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

The subprime litigation wave has been rolling along for well over a  year, so it might be expected that by now we have seen many of the likely litigation variations. I suspect there are hosts of new variations yet to come, but the most recent subprime-related lawsuits are substantially similar to prior lawsuits. Yet each one, briefly noted below, also involves some interesting additional variations on previously established subprime litigation themes.

Royal Bank of Canada Auction Rate Securities Lawsuit: On May 12, 2008, plaintiffs’ counsel announced (here) an auction rate securities-related class action lawsuit against Royal Bank of Canada and its subsidiaries, RBC Dain Rauscher and RBC Capital Markets Corporation. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

While there have been numerous prior auction rate securities lawsuits (about which refer here) and while the allegations in the RBC lawsuit appear substantially similar to the prior auction rate securities lawsuits, this lawsuit does present a couple of additional interesting elements.

The first is the lawsuit’s timing. The preceding auction rate securities lawsuits came in a rush between March 17, 2008 and April 21, 2008. There had been no new auction rate lawsuits since April 21, and the lengthening interval might have been interpreted to suggest that the filing onslaught had played itself out. The RBC lawsuit suggests that we may not yet have seen the last of the auction rate securities lawsuit filings.

The other interesting thing about the RBC lawsuit is that RBC itself is, obviously, a Canadian company. At a PLUS Chapter event in Montreal last week, there was a great deal of discussion about whether Canadian companies will feel the litigation effects of the subprime meltdown. The lawsuit against RBC suggests that at least Canadian companies with U.S. operating units exposed to subprime-related issues may find themselves swept up in the U.S.-based subprime litigation wave.

Indeed, RBC is not even the first Canadian company to be named in an auction rate securities lawsuit, as Oppenheimer, another Canadian company, was hit with an auction rate securities lawsuit in April 2008 (about which refer here). Even if Canadian companies are not being sued in Canadian courts on subprime-related issues, they are finding themselves involved in U.S.-based litigation.

Huntington Bancshares/Sky Financial/Waterfield Mortgage:  Huntington Bancshares, a Columbus, Ohio-based bank holding company, has previously been sued in a subprime-related securities class action lawsuit (about which refer here). The plaintiffs alleged in the prior lawsuit that, due to Huntington’s July 2007 acquisition of Sky Financial, Huntington had a much greater exposure to subprime mortgages than it had disclosed, allegedly harming a class of person who acquired Huntington shares between the time of the merger and the end of the class period in November 2007.

On May 7, 2008, Huntington was sued in a separate lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (complaint here). In this most recent lawsuit, Huntington is sued as successor in interest to Sky Financial. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of the former shareholders of Waterfield Mortgage Company, whose shares Sky Financial had acquired in an October 2006 stock for stock-and-cash merger transaction.

The May 7 complaint, which also names as defendants Sky Financial’s former CEO and former CFO, alleges that the Sky Financial and the individual defendants violated Sections 11 and 12 of the ’33 Act through alleged false and misleading statements in the registration and proxy documents issued in connection with the Waterfield acquisition. The complaint alleges that Sky Financial had an undisclosed lending relationship that resulted in a significant residential mortgage exposure for Sky Financial.

This most recent Huntington lawsuit involves a different set of plaintiffs asserting claims based on a different set of representations yet involving a defendant bank that has already been drawn into the subprime litigation wave. There will likely be other lawsuits like this one ahead, as litigation emerges to fill in the interstices of the circumstances surrounding the subprime meltdown. So far, the most noteworthy attribute of the subprime litigation wave has been its breadth. Perhaps in the months ahead, as the wave spreads to fill in other gaps, the most pronounced aspect of the litigation wave will be its depth.  

Special thanks to Adam Savett of the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here) for a copy of the Huntington/Sky/Waterfield complaint.

Run the Numbers: With the addition of these two new subprime-related securities class action lawsuits, the current tally (refer here) of subprime and credit-related lawsuits stands at 79, of which 39 have been filed in 2008. With the addition of the RBC auction rate securities lawsuit, there have now been 16 auction rate securities lawsuits, all of which have been filed in 2008.

Subprime Litigation Down Under: According to a May 12, 2008 Wall Street Journal article (here), Centro Retail Ltd. and its management company, and Centro Properties Company Ltd. and its management company, collectively  an Australian shopping center group, have been named as defendants in two class action lawsuits filed in Australian federal court based on alleged misleading statements in Centro’s disclosure documents between August 9, 2007 and February 15, 2008.

As discussed in the May 13, 2008 issue of The Australian (here), the recently filed lawsuits, brought by the Maurice Blackburn firm, are actually the second set of lawsuits announced against Centro. As discussed here, lawsuits had previously been announced against Centro and its property trust by the Slater & Gordon law firm. Both sets of lawsuits relate to Centro’s alleged misrepresentations regarding its leverage and its vulnerability to adverse credit developments, as a result of which the company experienced a severe share price decline.

While the spread of subprime-related shareholder class action litigation to Australia is interesting in and of itself, one specific aspect of these two sets of lawsuits is particularly interesting to me. That is, both sets of lawsuits are proceeding in reliance on third-party litigation funding.

According to Slater & Gordon’s April 22, 2008 press release (here), its lawsuits are being funded by “U.S based litigation funder Commonwealth Legal Funding LLC.” According to the press release, litigation funders “take a percentage of the net amount recovered, after expenses and after legal fees, for advancing all expenses and accepting the risk of any adverse award.” (The law firm itself recovers a court-approved hourly rate.)

The Maurice Blackburn firm’s separate set of actions is being funded by Australian-based IMF (Australia) Ltd. IMF is actually a publicly traded company whose shares trade on the Australian stock exchange. IMF’s May 9, 2008 press releases announced the filing of the lawsuits against Centro can be found here and here.

It isn’t clear how the existence of these two competing ventures will be reconciled. One might argue that the free market should be allowed to decide; along those lines, the Slater & Gordon press release touts the “significant” advantage its funder affords, in that “it takes a lower amount of the net amount recovered, from 15 to 30 percent, compared to the top rate of 40 per cent for the other proposal.”

One of the time-honored traditions in international financial circles is to rail against the excesses of the U.S. litigation system. But for all of our litigation extremes, litigation funding is one innovation that has not caught on in this country. It obviously has, by contrast, caught fire in Australia, and according to a March 20, 2008 Legal Week article (here), it also apparently has spread to the U.K.

As to whether litigation funding might catch on in the U.S., the WSJ.com Law Blog has an interesting post discussing the issue here. The Re: The Auditors Blog also has an interesting post on the topic here.

Australia has been setting the pace on innovation lately, as, among other things, the Slater & Gordon firm itself recently became the world’s first publicly traded law firm (refer here).

Opt-Out Options for the Little Guy: In a recent post (here), I discussed Columbia Law School Professor John Coffee’s recent paper in which he speculated that that we might be moving to a two-tier securities litigation system in which institutional investors with large financial interests at stake might increasingly seek to opt out from class litigation. The class itself, Coffee speculated, might increasingly be populated only by smaller investors whose financial stakes were too slight to justify opting out or to attract the interest of plaintiffs’ attorneys.

But an aspiring plaintiffs’ attorney’s recent publicity bid suggests that there may be enthusiasm for encouraging the little guys to opt-out too. In a May 12, 2008 press release suggestively entitled “Study Finds Many Bear Stearns Employees Should Opt-Out of Class Actions” (here), Brett Sherman of the Sherman Law Firm seeks to point out to Bear Stearns employees that investors who opted out of prior cases have had a higher percentage recovery of their investment losses.

The press release cites a variety of sources regarding opt-out litigation (including, in a twist that feels odd to me, my own InSights article about opt outs). None of the studies specifically find, as the press release title suggests, that Bear Stearns employees should opt out. Rather, Sherman himself asserts that “the only reasonable conclusion is that Bear Stearns employees with substantial losses have a dramatically better chance to recover a higher percentage of losses in individual opt out cases rather than as participants in class actions.”

Perhaps if, as Coffee speculates, institutional investors will increasingly opt out of class actions, and if, as Sherman advocates, the little guys decide to opt out too, no one will be left in the class. The issue here is clearly potential class members’ perception that opt-outs recover a greater percentage of their investment loss. To the extent that perception is widely shared, class counsel may face significant pressure to show a greater percentage recover of investment loss. Otherwise, the class action itself could become an empty vessel.

Of course it remains to be seen whether either large or small potential class members actually do opt out in material numbers. But assume for the sake of argument that they do. All those who have reviled the class action litigation procedure for so many years might want to contemplate the procedural morass that would attend a multitude of individual opt-out actions. Class litigation does offer certain efficiencies whose loss we might one day mourn.

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

Next up as targets in the ever-growing wave of subprime-related class action lawsuits are closed-end funds that issued auction preferred securities. The auction marketplace for these securities, like the market for auction rate municipal bonds, has broken down, and investors who bought the securities are now suing the closed end funds that issued the instruments.

First, some background. According to the Investment Company Institute’s web page describing and explaining closed end funds (here), closed end funds are managed investment companies that issue a fixed number of shares. The shares trade on the open market. In addition to these common shares, many closed end funds also issue preferred shares. The owners of the preferred shares are paid dividends, but they do not participate in the fund’s gains and losses. The sale of preferred shares gives the fund leverage, by permitting the fund to make additional investments, hoping to improve the common shareholders’ returns. For auction rate preferreds, the dividend rate is set through periodic auctions, typically held every seven or 28 days.

According to a March 9, 2008 New York Times article entitled “As Good as Cash, Until It’s Not” (here), the marketplace for municipalities’ auction rate notes is $330 billion, and the market for closed end fund auction rate preferred securities is $65 billion. But more to the point, investors in auction rate preferred securities, like investors in municipalities’ auction rate notes, have discovered that due to the February 2008 breakdown of the auction rate marketplace, investors find they are “stuck” with their investments and unable to sell them through the auction market.

But auction rate preferred investors are, according to the Times article, faring “far worse than investors stuck with municipal issues,” because many municipal note investors are receiving a penalty rate of up to 12 percent or more, a rate that is “much higher than the caps on closed-end notes, which are currently around 3.25 percent.” The closed end issuers “have no incentive to redeem their notes since the interest rate resulting from the failed auction is so low.”

A March 30, 2008 New York Times article entitled “If You Can’t Sell, Good Luck” (here) explains that auction rate preferred investors’ difficulties put the closed-end fund issuers “in something of a conflicted position,” because the common shareholders’ returns are enhanced by the leverage from the preferred securities investment. While the preferred holders would like their shares to be redeemed, the “common shareholders would lose out on extra income generated by the preferred share structure.”

Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the class action securities attorneys have now gotten involved. According to their press release (here), on April 21, 2008, the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ filed a purported securities class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund, on behalf of investors who acquired “Auction Rate Cumulative Preferred Shares” (ARPS) in the fund’s September 17, 2007 offering of $350 million of the securities. The complaint, which can be found here, also names as defendants the two investment banks that led the offering.

According to the press release, the complaint alleges that the offering documents omitted that:

(i) the purported “auctions” used by Calamos Fund to get the dividend rates were not bona fide auctions at all, but rather a mechanism to maintain the illusion of an efficient and liquid market for the ARPS so that the Calamos Fund could continue to earn fees from the so-called auctions and from the ongoing stabilizing of the market because of the lack of buyer demand; (ii) the default interest rate set as a consequence of a failed auction is less than the interest rate paid when auctions of certain competing municipal auction rate securities (“MARS”) offered directly by municipal issuers fail; (iii) the ARPS suffer from an additional disadvantage compared to MARS because the ARPS are securities which exist in perpetuity until such time as the Fund calls them due while MARS have a set due date; and (iv) the default interest rate as set would cause the ARPS to trade at a discount to their par value if, and when, the auctions began to fail.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of the auction rate marketplace failure “auction rate securities that were once offered as ‘cash equivalents’ are now illiquid, resulting in economic losses and severe hardships for investors.”

As I have previously noted (most recently here and here), there already is a growing wave of auction rate securities class action lawsuits. However, this most recent lawsuit differs from the prior actions, and not merely because it involves closed end fund auction rate preferred securities rather auction rate notes issued by municipalities. The new lawsuit is also different because it targets the issuer; in the prior auction rate lawsuits, the plaintiffs targeted the broker dealers that sold the securities, not the municipalities that issued the securities.

One thought I had while reviewing the Calamos complaint is that many of these auction rate lawsuits may present some interesting issues related to damages. In most instances, the instruments are continuing to pay interest according to their terms. With respect to the closed end fund notes, the securities are backed by real assets held in the funds, which would seem to suggest that the instruments retain substantial economic value. Even if the auction rate market itself proves to be permanently broken, it would seem that there should be strong economic incentives all the way around for a secondary market for these shares to develop. Of course, whether a fully functional secondary market emerges, and whether the marketplace requires a significant discount for these shares to trade, remains to be seen. But right now, calculating the alleged damages does seem to pose some challenging issues, particularly some mechanism to trade the shares develops while these cases are pending.  

Subprime Litigation Wave Hits Credit Suisse: On April 21, 2008, plaintiffs’ counsel also initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Credit Suisse Group and certain of its directors and officers. According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ press release (here), the complaint alleges that the “defendants failed to write down known impaired securities containing mortgage-related debt.” Specifically, the complaint alleges that

(a) that defendants failed to record losses on the deterioration in mortgage assets and collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) on Credit Suisse’s books caused by the high amount of non-collectible mortgages included in the portfolio; (b) that Credit Suisse’s internal controls were inadequate to ensure that losses on residential mortgage-related assets were accounted for properly; and (c) that Credit Suisse’s traders had put incorrect values on CDOs and other debt securities, concealing the exposure the Company had to losses.

The complaint (which can be found here), also alleges that on February 19, 2008, the company announced (here) fair value reductions of $2.25 billion following its repricing of its asset-backed positions, triggering a sharp decline in the company’s share price.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers have engineered the purported class on whose behalf the action is brought, in a clear attempt to avoid jurisdictional challenges and other concerns. The purported class includes all shareholders who purchased Credit Suisse ADRs on the NYSE, and all U.S. residents or citizens who purchased Credit Suisse stock elsewhere. This purported class excludes non-U.S. investors who purchased their securities outside of the United States.

This class composition seems tailored to match the composition of the class recently certified in the Converium securities lawsuit (as discussed in greater detail on the Securities Litigation Watch blog, here). This class composition also avoids many of the so-called “f-cubed” litigant problems (involving foreign domiciled shareholders who bought their shares in a foreign company on a foreign exchange). Avoiding this issue could eliminate friction at the lead plaintiff, motion to dismiss, and class certification stages. It does raise questions about the foreign litigants and their apparent inability to seek class remedies of the type that other securityholders in the same company are able to pursue in the U.S. Whether that triggers these securityholders to file a bunch of individual actions, as happened after the foreign litigants were excluded from the Vivendi lawsuit (as also discussed on the Securities Litigation Watch blog, here), remains to be seen.

For further background about the “f-cubed” issue, refer to my prior posts, here and here.

Run the Numbers: With the addition of these two new lawsuits, the current tally of subprime and other credit crisis related lawsuits, which can be accessed here, now stands at 76, 36 of which have been filed in 2008. Of the 38 so far in 2008, 15 (including the Calamos lawsuit described above) are auction rate securities lawsuits.

Excess D&O Insurance Coverage Issues: In several posts (most recently here), I have examined the increasingly important emergence of coverage disputes involving excess D&O insurance. In the latest issue of InSights, entitled “Excess Liability Insurance: Coverage Disputes and Possible Solutions” (here), I take a more comprehensive look at the coverage issues involving excess D&O insurance.

Speaker’s Corner: On April 22, 2008 at 1:00 P.M. EDT, I will be participating in a one-hour webinar sponsored by Merrill Corporation entitled “The Subprime Ripple Effect: Preparing for the Wave of Litigation.” The other participants include Thomas Reilly, the former Massachusetts Attorney General and a shareholder in the Greenburg Traurig law firm, and Mark Kindy, EVP of Strategy and Operations for Merrill Corp. Registration (which is free) can be accessed here.

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

Driven by the growing wave of subprime-related litigation (particularly a spate of auction rate securities lawsuits), the number of new securities class action lawsuit filings surged in March 2008. The total number of new securities class action lawsuit filings -- 25 – matches the number of new filings in November 2007, which in turn represented the highest monthly total of new filings since January 2005.

The 25 new securities lawsuits in March included 14 new subprime-related suits, taking account the new auction rate securities filed against J.P. Morgan Chase on March 31, 2008 (about which refer here). Of the 14 subprime-related suits, eight (including the new J.P. Morgan Chase lawsuit) were brought on behalf of auction rate securities investors against the companies that sold them the instruments. The remaining lawsuits (both those that are subprime-related and those that are not) were brought on behalf of public company shareholders against the companies and their directors and officers, other than one lawsuit brought on behalf of mutual fund investors.  

Largely because of the subprime-related litigation, many of the March lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York – a total of 11 of March’s 25 new securities lawsuits were filed in the S.D.N.Y. Six of the new securities lawsuits filed in March involved companies domiciled overseas.

With the addition of the 25 new lawsuits in March, the total number of new securities lawsuits filed in the first quarter of 2008 totaled 52, of which 24 are subprime-related. All of the auction rate securities lawsuits were filed in March. (A complete list of the subprime-related lawsuits can be found on my running tally of subprime lawsuits, which may be accessed here.)

The 52 new securities class action filings in the first quarter of 2008, if extrapolated across four quarters, imply an annual filing rate of 208 new securities class action lawsuits, which is consistent with historical norms. (According to Cornerstone’s year-end 2007 securities analysis, here, the average number of securities class action filings during the period 1997 to 2006 is 1994). However, while this filing rate is consistent with historical levels, it is well above the annual levels seen in the most recent years, particularly 2006 (116) and 2007 (166).

Again, largely due to the number of subprime-related filings, the S.D.N.Y had the largest number of first quarter filings, with 21. The federal district with the next highest numbers of filings, D.Mass., had only five.

The companies sued in new securities lawsuits in the first quarter represented 31 different Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code categories, which might suggest that a broad diversity of companies were sued, but in most of those 31 categories only a single company was sued. The SIC Code categories with the largest numbers of companies sued were SIC Code category 6211 (Security Brokers and Dealers), with 7 companies sued, and 6021 (National Commercial Banks), with 6 companies sued. In all 29 companies in the 6000 SIC Code series (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) were sued in the first quarter.

Nine of the companies sued for the first time in the first quarter of 2008 were domiciled overseas, representing eight different countries (including Switzerland, in which two of the companies are domiciled; the other seven countries had only one each.)

Six on the companies sued for the first time in the first quarter of 2008 had completed an initial public offering less than 12 months before the date of the first-filed lawsuit.

A final word about my lawsuit count: I am largely dependent on publicly available sources for my information about securities class action filings, although I have been able to supplement my information with data and links supplied by readers. (I am always grateful when readers bring information to my attention). I have compared my count to the information available on the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse website (here) and have elected to omit certain cases that the Stanford site has included, largely because at least three of the cases listed on the Stanford site do not involved publicly traded companies. I will say that the diversity and variation of cases that have arisen in the last few months have created some very difficult categorization issues, and reasonable minds clearly could differ as to whether any particular case should or should not be “counted.”

While the securities class action lawsuit filing rate has fluctuated since mid-2007, the evidence remains consistent that the "lull" in filings that occured between mid-2005 and mid-2007 is over. It does remain to be seen if the filings will continue at their current rate, especially whethter factors such as the auction rate securities crisis will continue to drive litigation. On the other hand, the litigation activity is being driven by so many different aspects of the current crisis, it seems probable that subprime and other credit-related litigation will continue to accumulate. The more interesting question may be the extent to whcih the credit crisis litigation will spread beyond the financial sector.

A Further Thought about Securities Class Action Settlements: Earlier today I posted about the new Cornerstone report on 2007 class action settlements. The report is interesting and includes useful analysis and information. But upon reflection, it occurred to me that it is increasingly the case that class action settlement data alone may not provide all of the information necessary to understand the costs involved in resolving securities lawsuits. As I have noted in numerous prior posts (refer here), class opt outs are an increasingly important part of securities lawsuit resolution, a development that gained considerable momentum during 2007. Indeed, as I note here, the aggregate amount required to settle the Qwest opt-out actions actually exceeded the amount of the class settlement, and the amount paid in settlement of other opt actions is also very substantial.

For that reason, any assessment of the total costs involved in securities case resolution cannot be limited to class action settlements alone. The costs involved with separate opt-out actions must also be considered.

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