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

The 2008 securities lawsuit filings were dominated by new lawsuits filed against companies in the financial sector, as has been well-documented elsewhere (refer here). But while lawsuits against financial companies were the most prominent feature of the 2008 securities filings, there were also a significant number of lawsuits filed against companies outside the financial sector. In particular, life sciences companies, which historically have experienced a heightened level of securities litigation exposure, suffered a significant level of litigation activity once again in 2008.

For purposes of this post, I am including under the heading "life sciences" companies any company either in SIC Code series 283 (Drugs) or in SIC Code series 384 (Surgical, Medical and Dental Instruments and Supplies). Reasonable minds could differ about whether additional categories should also be included within life sciences companies, but the interests of simplicity and consistency with my own prior analyses support this categorical definition.

A review of the 2008 securities lawsuit filings shows that, notwithstanding the primacy of litigation involving financial companies during the year, heightened securities litigation activity involving life sciences companies continued in 2008.

According to my analyses, during 2008, there were 15 new securities lawsuits filed against companies in the 283 SIC Code series, including nine in the 2834 SIC Code category (Pharmaceutical Preparations). There were also eight securities lawsuits filed against companies in the 384 SIC Code category, including five in the 3845 SIC Code category (Electromedical Apparatus).

The fact that there were 23 new securities lawsuits filed against life sciences companies in 2008 is quite remarkable given the predominance of the credit crisis litigation wave.

The total number of life sciences lawsuits is significant in relative terms as well. By way of comparison to the 23 new securities lawsuits filed against life sciences companies in 2008, there were 21 securities lawsuits filed against life sciences companies in 2007. (My detailed analysis of the 2007 life sciences securities lawsuits can be found here.)

The fact that the number of lawsuits filed against life sciences companies actually increased in 2008 is extraordinary in light of the extent of the surging credit crisis litigation wave.

The 23 securities lawsuits filed against life sciences companies in 2008 represents approximately 10% of the total of 226 new securities lawsuits overall that were filed in 2008, which is comparable to the 12% that life sciences lawsuits represented of 2007 securities lawsuit filings.

That this significant of a percentage of securities litigation activity is unrelated to the credit crisis litigation wave underscores a point I have previously emphasized (for example, here), that while the subprime and credit crisis-related litigation wave is a significant factor driving securities lawsuits filing activity, it is by no means the sole factor.

The lawsuits filed against life sciences companies in 2008 involved a wide variety of allegations. The most common allegation, asserted in five of the lawsuits, is that the defendant company misrepresented the results or progress of one or more of its clinical trials. Lawsuits filed against four companies alleged financial misstatements or improper revenue recognition.

Other lawsuits involved allegations relating to disclosures about product efficacy; manufacturing deficiencies or controls; merger integration issues; misrepresentations about an officer’s credentials; intellectual property concerns; and product commercial viability.

The attributes of these companies that most frequently attract litigation is the combination of their susceptibility to disruptive events and the vulnerability of their share prices. These kinds of setbacks are an almost inevitable attribute of the regulatory and scientific environment in which these companies operate. However, these kinds of risks are also often comprehensively disclosed.

As a result, though life sciences companies are frequently sued, they have not proven to be easy targets. As I noted here and here, lawsuits filed against life sciences companies are frequently dismissed. Nevertheless, life sciences companies continue to attract the unwanted attention of the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Securities Litigation Survey: Readers interested in securities litigation topics under the year-in- review heading will want to take a look at  the January 2009 memorandum by the Skadden law firm entitled "Securities Litigation 2008 – Noteworthy Decisions" (here). The memorandum does a particularly good job briefly summarizing the eleven decisions discussed as well as identifying the significance of the decisions.

Early Registration Deadline Approaching: The early registration deadline for the C5 D&O Liability Insurance Conference is approaching. The Conference is scheduled to take place March 24 and 25, 2009 in London. As reflected in the program brochure, which can be accessed here, the program has a number of interesting speakers and will be addressing many of the current hot topics in D&O insurance. I will be participating in a panel entitled "Current Litigation Trends in Europe and the US: Are Class Actions on the Horizon?"

The early registration deadline for this conference is February 9, 2009, after which the registration fee becomes considerably more expense.

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

Over the last several years, Congress has made several different efforts to concentrate class action litigation in federal court.

For example, in the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), Congress amended portions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to preempt class actions alleging fraud under state law in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. The Act specifically made state law securities class action lawsuits removable to federal court.

In addition, in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Congress expanded federal court jurisdiction over class actions and mass actions. CAFA gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and in which any of the class members is a citizen of a state different from any defendant.

But while Congress enacted these various legislative changes designed to concentrate class action litigation in federal court, Section 22(a) of the ’33 Act preserved state court jurisdiction by specifying that federal courts’ jurisdiction for ’33 Act lawsuits is “concurrent with State and Territorial courts.” Moreover, Section 22(a) specifically provides that no case “brought in any state court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States.”

These jurisdictional provisions have been a part of the federal securities laws since the basic statutes’ enactment. But the legislative developments in the interim raise the question whether the subsequent enactments override the concurrent state court jurisdictional provisions in Section 22(a).

As I have previously noted (here), plaintiffs’ lawyers have chosen to file a number of subprime-related securities class action lawsuits alleging ’33 Act violations in state court. In particular, plaintiffs’ lawyers have elected to file in state court several class action lawsuits alleging misrepresentations in connection with the creation and issuance of subprime mortgage-backed securities. These lawsuits, of which by my count there have been at least four, exclusively allege violations of the ’33 Act.

One of the first of these lawsuits to be filed is the case styled as Luther v. Countrywide, the background regarding which can be found here. The plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. The Luther complaint names as defendants several Countrywide subsidiaries and affiliated individuals, multiple loan trusts, and Countrywide’s offering underwriters.

The claims in the Luther lawsuit are brought on behalf of purchasers of billions of dollars of mortgage pass-through certificates issued between June 2005 and June 2007. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the ’33 Act, essentially on the grounds that the risk of investing in the mortgage pass-through certificates was much greater than represented by the registration and prospectus supplements, which allegedly omitted and misstated the creditworthiness of the underlying borrowers.

The defendants, in reliance on CAFA, removed the Luther case to federal court. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court.

As discussed here, on February 28, 2008, Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court, holding that Section 22(a)’s removal bar trumps CAFA’s general grant of diversity and removal jurisdiction. The defendants appealed.

In an opinion filed on July 16, 2008 (here), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, specifically holding that CAFA, “which permits in general the removal to federal court of high-dollar class actions involving diverse parties, does not supersede Section 22(a)’s specific bar against removal of cases arising under the ’33 Act.”

The defendants had argued that CAFA superseded Section 22(a)’s removal bar. But the Ninth Circuit, applying principles of statutory construction, held that while CAFA applies to a “generalized spectrum” of class actions, the ’33 Act is “the more specific statute” and that the removal bar “more precisely applies only to claims” under the ’33 Act. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff’s initial state court class action “was not removable” and that “the motion to remand was properly granted.”

In other words, the Luther lawsuit will now go forward in state court. In light of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, it seems likely that the various other subprime-related class action lawsuits filed against the mortgage securitizers will also eventually proceed in state court as well.

The “where” question has been resolved, but the “why” question still remains – that is, why do plaintiffs’ counsel want to proceed in state court rather than federal court?

One possibility is that plaintiffs’ counsel believes that state courts will be more sympathetic to the interests of local claimants, especially in connection with their claims against out-of-state moneyed interests. The search for a more favorable court has always driven forum shopping, and there may be some of that here. But I do wonder why plaintiffs’ securities attorneys, whose practices historically (especially in recent years) have concentrated in federal court, want to litigate in a state court with which they may be less familiar, and that will be unfamiliar with federal securities laws and securities litigation generally.

Another possible reason plaintiffs lawyers want to proceed in state court is that they want to try to circumvent the procedural requirements of the PSLRA. I have speculated elsewhere (most recently here) that plaintiffs’ counsel may try to argue that the PSLRA’s procedural requirements do not apply to a ’33 Act case in state court. The plaintiffs’ argument would be that the PSLRA, codified in Section 27(a) of the ’33 Act, provides that the PSLRA applies only to private actions “brought as a plaintiff class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” The plaintiffs’ counsel may argue that because their suit was not brought pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the PSLRA’s procedural requirements (such as the notice provisions, the discovery stay, and the lead plaintiff provision) do not apply. There could be a great deal of litigation turbulence if plaintiffs’ lawyers pursue these arguments (which seems likely).

Plaintiffs’ counsel apparently have the right to pursue ’33 Act claims in state court, which for whatever reason they seem inclined to do. There were of course a few securities lawsuits filed in state court after the enactment of the PSLRA, but my recollection is that that experiment did not go particularly well. Due to the state courts’ crowded dockets and unfamiliarity with federal securities laws, the cases bogged down. The enactment of SLUSA seemingly ended this prior flawed experiment.

Nevertheless, plaintiffs’ securities attorneys, for reasons they deem good and sufficient, are back again in state court, a place where they now seem eager to be. Some recalibration may be required to accommodate the prospect of further state court securities litigation. The plaintiffs’ lawyers’ interest in pursuing state court ’33 Act class action litigation is an unexpected development with uncertain implications. The road could be rough for all concerned.

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