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

I am pleased to present below a guest post from Angelo G. Savino of the Cozen O’Connor law firm discussing the Southern District of New York’s application of the Morrison decision in an SEC enforcement action pending against Goldman Sachs employee Fabrice Tourre. This guest post will also be published and distributed in the future as a Client Alert from the Cozen law firm.

My thanks to Angelo for his willingness to publish his guest post here. I welcome guest posts from responsible commentators on topics relevant to this blog. Any readers who are interested in publishing a guest post on this site are encouraged to contact me directly.

Here is Angelo’s guest post::

On June 10, 2011, Judge Barbara Jones of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision in a case entitled SEC v. Goldman Sachs & Co., No. 10-3229 (“Goldman Sachs”), that applied the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision to claims by the SEC under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Goldman had previously settled the claims against it for $550 million, but left Fabrice Tourre, a Goldman Vice President who had worked at its New York headquarters, to face the SEC’s claims. 

The decision is noteworthy because it is the first to apply Morrison, which held that section 10(b) of the Exchange Act does not apply extraterritorially, to claims by the SEC. It is also the first decision to provide a detailed analysis of the second prong of Morrison’s transactional test involving domestic transactions in securities that are not listed on an exchange. Lastly, the decision is the first to apply Morrison to section 17(a) of the Securities Act. 

The SEC alleged that in 2007, Goldman structured and marketed a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”) called Abacus 2007-ACI (“Abacus”) that was based on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”). CDOs are debt securities collateralized by other debt obligations such as, in this case, RMBSs. The complaint also alleged that Goldman was assisted by a hedge fund, Paulson & Co. Inc. (“Paulson”) in selecting the RMBSs that would collateralize the CDO. At the same time, Paulson allegedly entered into a credit default swap (“CDS”) that essentially bet that the RMBSs would perform poorly. According to the SEC, Goldman and Tourre marketed the CDOs without disclosing to investors that the underlying portfolio of mortgage-backed securities had been selected by Paulson while Paulson was betting against their performance. Tourre was allegedly the Goldman employee principally responsible for structuring and marketing the Abacus securities. 

The SEC also alleged that Goldman and Tourre marketed and sold $150 million worth of Abacus notes to IKB, a German commercial bank, and $42 million worth of notes to ACA Capital Holdings, Inc. (“ACA Capital”), a U.S.-based entity. ACA Capital also entered into a credit default swap involving a $909 million super senior tranche of Abacus. Essentially, ACA Capital assumed the credit risk associated with that portion of Abacus’s capital structure in exchange for premium payments. Thereafter, through a series of credit default swaps among ABN, Goldman, and ACA Capital, ABN assumed the credit risk regarding that $909 million tranche. ABN is a Dutch bank.

The closing for Abacus occurred in New York City and Goldman delivered the notes through the book entry facilities of Depository Trust Company in New York City. Tourre, however, provided the court with trade confirmation indicating that Goldman Sachs International, located in London, was listed as the seller of the notes to an IKB affiliate based on the Island of Jersey, a British dependency. Similarly, the CDS confirmations regarding the ABN transaction listed the seller as Goldman Sachs International and the purchaser as the London branch of ABN. 

The SEC claimed that Tourre had violated section 17(a) of the Securities Act and section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and aided and abetted violations of section 10(b). Tourre moved to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings based on Morrison on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim because it did not allege securities transactions that took place in the United States. 

Judge Jones first analyzed the SEC’s Exchange Act claims against Tourre. She noted that the Supreme Court, in Morrison, had adopted a clear transactional test: “whether the purchase or sale is made in the United States, or involves a security listed on a domestic exchange.” Nevertheless, Judge Jones also noted that, because the securities at issue in Morrison were traded only on foreign exchanges, the Supreme Court was largely silent regarding how lower courts should determine whether a purchase or sale is made in the United States. That, however, was the issue she faced because the Abacus securities were not traded on an exchange. 

The court began its analysis of the issue by looking to the statutory definitions of “purchase” and “sale” in the Exchange Act, which were relatively “unhelpful.” The court then turned to case law and determined that the concept of “irrevocable liability” was at the core of both a “sale” and a “purchase.” The court noted that at some time a purchaser incurs irrevocable liability to take and pay for a security while a seller incurs irrevocable liability to deliver a security. 

In applying this concept to the IKB transaction, the court rejected the SEC’s arguments based on Tourre’s presence in New York while he engaged in structuring and marketing of Abacus on the grounds that it was merely conduct, which had been rejected as the determinative factor in Morrison. Judge Jones also rejected the SEC’s argument that courts must look to the “entire selling process” to determine whether a securities transaction is foreign or domestic. The court observed “in reality, the SEC’s ‘entire selling process’ argument is an invitation for this court to disregard Morrison and return to the ‘conduct’ and ‘effects’ tests.” 

The SEC had also conceded at oral argument that the closing in New York, by itself, was not sufficient to make IKB note purchases domestic transactions for purposes of Morrison. For good measure, however, the court noted Quail Cruises Ship Mgmt. v. Agencia De Viagens CVC Tur Limitada, which also rejected the place of closing as determinative under Morrison. Accordingly, the court concluded as follows: 

In view of the fact that none of the conduct or activities alleged by the SEC, including the closing, constitute facts that demonstrate where any party to the IKB note purchases incurred “‘irrevocable liability[,]’” . . . the SEC fails to provide sufficient facts that allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the IKB note “purchase[s] or sale[s were] made in the United States.” 

Turning to the ABN transaction, the court stated that the SEC provided no facts from which the court could draw the reasonable inference that any party to the ABN CDS transaction incurred “irrevocable liability” in the United States. Thus, Judge Jones ruled that the SEC failed to allege that the ABN CDS transaction constituted a domestic transaction under Morrison for the same reasons as the IKB purchases. 

Because AKA Capital was based in the United States, there appears to have been no opportunity for the court to apply Morrison to those transactions. Instead, the court analyzed whether the SEC had sufficiently pled the elements of a violation of section 10(b), and found that it had. 

The court also analyzed the sufficiency of the SEC’s claim under section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and whether Morrison applied to that statutory section. The court observed that Morrison did not involve or consider section 17(a), none of the parties had cited any cases applying Morrison to section 17(a), and the court was not aware of any such case. Judge Jones observed that In re Royal Bank of Scotland Grp. PLC. Litig. applied Morrison to sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, but did not address section 17(a). Nevertheless, the court agreed with Tourre that Morrison applies to section 17(a), stating that “Morrison itself expressly states that the Exchange Act and the Securities Act share ‘[t]he same focus on domestic transactions.’” Because Morrison focused on whether sales of securities were domestic or foreign, Judge Jones concluded that, to the extent section 17(a) applied to sales, it does not apply to sales that occur outside the United States. The court therefore dismissed the section 17(a) claim, but only to the extent that it was based on sales to IKB and ABN. 

The court continued its analysis, however, observing that section 17(a), unlike section 10(b), applies not only to sales of securities, but also to offers to sell securities. The court examined the definition of the term “offer” in the Securities Act, which states that an offer includes “every attempt to offer or dispose of, or solicitation of an offer to buy, a security or interest in a security, for value.” The court stated that this definition left no doubt that the focus of “offer,” under the Securities Act, was on the person or entity attempting, or offering, to dispose of, or soliciting an offer to buy, securities. Applying this definition to the allegations of the complaint, the court noted that the SEC alleged Tourre, acting from New York City, offered Abacus notes to IKB and solicited ABN’s participation in Abacus CDSs. The court observed that Tourre allegedly engaged in numerous communications from New York City that constituted domestic offers of securities or swaps. Thus, Judge Jones permitted the section 17(a) claim to survive to the extent that it was based on such “offers.” 

Conclusion

This case adds significantly to the jurisprudence applying the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision. As an initial matter, the case represents the first time that any court has applied Morrison to claims by the SEC. Because this action was brought prior to the enactment of Dodd-Frank, which purports to grant subject matter jurisdiction over extraterritorial claims by the SEC, it remains to be seen whether subsequent post-enactment SEC cases will follow this decision. It is arguable that Dodd-Frank should not change the Morrison analysis as applied to the SEC. Although Dodd-Frank purports to grant subject matter jurisdiction over extraterritorial securities claims by the SEC, the Supreme Court, in Morrison, held that district courts already had subject matter jurisdiction, but that section 10(b) itself had no extraterritorial reach. Nothing in Dodd-Frank modified section 10(b) in that regard. Thus, courts in post-enactment cases may conclude that they are able to follow Judge Jones’s decision in Goldman Sachs. 

In addition, the Goldman Sachs decision is significant for its analysis of how Morrison applies to transactions in securities that are not listed on an exchange. As Judge Jones noted, because Morrison involved securities traded on foreign exchanges, the decision is essentially silent on the second prong of its transactional test involving the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States. The Goldman Sachs decision furnishes a well reasoned analytical roadmap for other courts to follow in this respect. 

Lastly, the decision is noteworthy for its articulation of the applicability of Morrison to claims under section 17(a) of the Securities Act involving sales of securities, and to the Securities Act generally. 

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

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month in the Morrison v. National Australia Bank case made it clear U.S. securities laws do not allow so-called "f-cubed" cases -- securities claims against foreign domiciled companies and brought by foreign-domiciled claimants who purchased their company shares on foreign exchanges -- in U.S. courts. The securities laws, the Court said in Morrison, relate solely to "transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges" and to claims relating to "domestic transactions in other securities."

But what did the Court mean when it referred to "domestic transactions"? Unfortunately the Court didn’t say. As the recent lead plaintiff decision in the securities class action lawsuit involving Toyota demonstrates, this question could be a problem in many cases involving foreign companies, particularly where the cases involve claims brought by or on behalf of U.S. domiciled investors who bought their shares in the foreign companies on foreign exchanges – the so-called "f-squared" claimants.

These issues were addressed recently in the lead plaintiff decisions in the Toyota class action securities litigation. As discussed at greater length here, in February 2010, Toyota and certain related corporate entitles, as well as certain of its directors and officers, were sued in securities class action lawsuit in the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege that Toyota misled investors by allegedly failing to disclose that there was a design defect in Toyota’s acceleration system that could cause its cars to accelerate suddenly.

Toyota’s common stock trades on the Tokyo stock exchange and its American Depository Shares trade on the NYSE.

The Supreme Court’s Morrison decision became relevant in connection with the court’s selection of lead plaintiff in the Toyota case. As reflected in her July 16, 2010 memorandum opinion, Judge Dale Fischer had to determine whether or not the Morrison decision allows claims under the securities laws by domestic U.S. shareholders who purchased their shares in a foreign company on a foreign exchange. She had to determine for purposes of the lead plaintiff motion whether the claims of U.S. purchasers of Toyota common stock on the Tokyo exchange were relevant for purposes of the lead plaintiff selection.

In her July 16 opinion, Judge Fischer noted the Morrison decision’s statement that the securities laws allows claims relating to "domestic transactions in other securities," which the decision also refers to as "the purchase or sale of any security in the United States." In exploring what these phrases from the Morrison decision might mean, Judge Fischer said:

One view of the Supreme Court’s holding is that if the purchaser or seller resides in the United States and completes a transaction on a foreign exchange from the United States, the purchase or sale has taken place in the United States. However, an alternative view is that because the actual transaction takes place on the foreign exchange, the purchaser or seller has figuratively traveled to that foreign exchange – presumably via a foreign broker – to complete the transaction. Under this second view, "domestic transactions" or "purchase[s] or sales[s]…in the United States" means purchases and sales of securities explicitly solicited by the issuer within the United States rather than transactions in foreign-traded securities where the ultimate purchaser or seller has physically remained in the United States.

Judge Fischer concluded that the latter of these two positions was "better supported" by Morrison, largely because the Morrison decision emphasized that the U.S. securities laws were not intended to regulate the foreign exchanges.

Having worked through this analysis of whose claims were proper under the U.S. securities laws, Judge Fischer then selected as lead plaintiff the proposed lead plaintiff that had the larges alleged American Depository Share loss.

However, Judge Fischer did say at the outset of her opinion with respect to her analysis of whose claims the Court could properly entertain that "this is not a final determination of the issue and Plaintiffs are not foreclosed from arguing that domestic purchasers of Toyota common stock [as opposed to domestic purchasers of Toyota’s American Depository Shares] have claims" under the securities laws." She added, however, that "the Court currently believes that a fair reading of Morrison excludes those claims" – that is, the claims of domestic U.S. shareholders who purchases Toyota’s common stock on the Tokyo stock exchange.

When the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in the Morrison case, it was immediately apparent that the decision would have a significant potential impact on pending and future securities cases involving foreign-domiciled companies. However, as the lead plaintiff decision in the Toyota case shows, it may not be entirely clear how the Morrison decision will affect the cases against foreign companies.

It remains to be seen whether or not "f-squared" cases will be precluded on the Morrison decision, but it seems likely that this will be a hotly contested battleground in many of the cases involving foreign companies.

Very special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of Judge Fischer’s July 16 opinion.

My pre-Morrison discussion of an" f-squared claimant" case involving European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. (EADS) can be found here.

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

It was obvious from the first reading that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank represents a sweeping victory for the defendants. As I noted in my initial post after the decision came down, the Court’s holding that plaintiffs can’t pursue fraud claims for securities purchased on foreign exchanges will have a significant impact both on pending cases and on future filings.

On further reflection, it seems the case could have even more significant implications.

First, with respect to pending cases, it is worth noting that Vivendi itself believes, as I suggested in my prior post, that National Australia Bank ruling has significant implications concerning the jury verdict entered against the company in January 2010. Indeed, Vivendi issued a June 25, 2010 press release (here), in which it said that the company is "very satisfied" with the decision, commenting further that the Court’s ruling is "totally in line with the position defended all along by the Group in the American and French Courts."

According to prior press reports (here), as many as two-thirds of Vivendi’s investors live in France, and undoubtedly many of them, as well as many of Vivendi’s other investors that reside outside the United States, likely bought their shares on securities exchanges outside the United States. Under the transactional test the Court enunciated in the National Australia Bank decision, investors who bought their share on non-U.S. exchanges cannot pursue a claim under U.S. securities laws. It seems likely that the class of persons entitled to claim injury in the Vivendi case necessarily will be dramatically narrowed.

There are many other pending cases that are likely to be similarly affected. In a June 25, 2010 AmLaw Litigation Daily article (here), Andrew Longstreth examines the likely impact of the National Australia Bank case on the securities class action litigation filed under U.S. securities law against BP and certain of its directors and officers. BP’s common shares trade on the London Stock Exchange, and though many investors likely bought American Depositary Receipts for BP on U.S. exchanges, many of its shareholders more likely bought their shares in the U.K. (The AmLaw article notes that 28% of BP’s equity is in ADRs, so those shares are unlikely to be affected by the Supreme Court’s recent decision.)

Other cases that are likely to be affected by the Supreme Court’s decision include the action brought against Porsche, which was sued in January 2010 by short sellers of Volkswagen stock who claimed Porsche secretly cornered the market in Volkswagen shares but denied that it intended to acquire Volkswagen. According to a June 25, 2010 Bloomberg article (here) discussing the impact of the National Australia Bank decision on the Porsche case, the plaintiffs claims in the case are likely reduced only to "causes of action based on low-volume American depositary shares."

A number of foreign-domiciled companies that have been the target of securities class action litigation under U.S. securities laws filed amicus briefs in the National Australia Bank case; the cases filed against many of these companies, including EADS and Alstom, seem likely to be substantially affect by the Court’s holding.

Other recently filed cases also seem likely to be affected, including the cases recently filed against Toyota,

Securities suits against foreign companies have in recent years been a significant part of overall securities lawsuit filings in recent years. For example, 24 (or 12.7%) of the 2009 securities lawsuit filings involved companies that are domiciled outside the United States. In 2008, there were 34 foreign domiciled companies sued in securities class action lawsuit, or about 15% of all filings that year.

Not all of these securities suits are necessarily going to be affected by the National Australia Bank case. For example, the lawsuit filed earlier this year against Nokia was at the very outset brought only on behalf of investors who bought their American Depositary Shares in the company on U.S. exchanges. Similarly the lawsuit filed late last year against Siemens was brought solely on behalf of purchasers of the company’s American Depositary Receipt shares.

The fact that cases against foreign companies with securities trading on U.S. exchanges may still be susceptible to securities class action litigation in U.S. court because their securities trade on U.S. exchanges could well discourage some overseas companies from having their shares trade here.

While there will still be circumstance even after National Australia Bank in which securities suits in U.S. courts against foreign-domiciled companies will still be filed and will still go forward, it seems probable that many other cases that might have been filed in the past will now simply go unfiled, at least in the U.S -- particularly in those cases where the foreign companies do not have significant numbers of ADRs or other securities trading on U.S. exchanges.

Given what a significant percentage of total U.S.-based securities class action filings these actions against foreign companies have become in recent years, the reduction in these filings could mean a material reduction in the overall level of securities class action filings (although please see my comments below about some other possibilities for U.S.-based litigation.)

The fact that investors who bought shares on foreign exchanges can no longer access U.S. courts clearly creates a problem these investors. As the filing levels described above demonstrate, these investors increasingly had come to rely on the U.S processes and remedies as a way to seek redress when they felt they had been misled, at least where the alleged fraud involved U.S-based conduct.

Indeed, numerous foreign institutional investors had filed amicus briefs in the National Australia Bank case (refer for example here), arguing that "both foreign and domestic investors alike rely on American Law to ensure that corporations doing business in America are not tainted by fraud."

Now that these investors can no longer "rely on American Law" in many instances, these investors will have to consider their alternatives. One possibility is that these investors will increasingly rely on remedies in their own country. Without access to U.S. courts, these and similarly situated investors may find action in their domestic courts more attractive.

For that matter, without access to U.S remedies and processes, investors in foreign countries may press for the implantation of legal reforms in their home countries to permit them better means of attempting to recoup losses based on alleged fraud.

Of course, resourceful plaintiffs’ lawyers in this country are now highly motivated to try to find ways around the National Australia Bank decision. Some possible ways it might be circumvented include filing individual lawsuits in state court under state law, and filing federal court class actions alleging state law violations. Claimants in these kinds of cases arguably may face the same hurdles of trying to show that the relevant law provides remedies regarding securities transactions on foreign exchanges, but the existence of U.S.-based fraudulent conduct potentially could provide a sufficient basis for relief under many legal theories, even if not under the federal securities laws.

Another possibility is that the foreign institutional investors and others may seek legislative change in the U.S. in order to establish a new statutory basis for relief in U.S. courts for investors who bought shares overseas, at least where there is U.S.-based conduct involved in the alleged fraud. As I pointed out in my prior post, legislative initiatives in the current Congress proposed to do that very thing.

As Luke Green points out in his post on the Risk Metrics Securities Litigation blog (here), the National Australia Bank case does not carve out an exception for the SEC and the DoJ, and there may be considerable interest providing statutory means for these agencies to pursue remedies for U.S.-based fraudulent conduct even if in connection with transactions on foreign exchanges. (Green also has a number of other interesting thoughts and comments about the decision.)

UPDATE: An alert reader points out that in the Conference Committee of the financial reform bill (called "The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act", here ) there are provisions addressing these questions of extraterritoriality. First, Section 929P(b) authorizes an action brought by the Commission based on a statutorily defined conduct and effects test. Second, Section 929Y directs the Commission to study whether private rights of action should be allowed on the same basis as authorized for the Commission in 929P(b). The Commission is to report to Congress within 18 months of the statute's enactment.

The bottom line is that National Australia Bank is an important decision that will have a number of significant impacts, some immediately and some in the months and years to come. Some of the impacts are obvious and apparent now, and some will only become apparent over time.

The National Australia Bank case does underscore how significant it is when the U.S. Supreme Court decides to take up a securities case. Each occasion represents a context within very significant changes in the interpretation or application of the U.S. securities laws potentially could occur, as proved to be the case here. Full consideration of this possibility makes it all the more interesting and potentially significant that the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the Matrixx Initiative securities suit. This development raises the possibility for even further landscape altering case law from the U.S. Supreme Court in its next term.

It’s Not Over Yet, Folks: While it is not too early to start looking ahead to the Supreme Court’s next term, it is also worth noting that this current term is not yet complete, as the Court has yet to issue decisions in four high profile cases. As noted on the WSJ.com Law Blog (here), these four decisions are likely to be issued on Monday, June 28, 2010.

Among the four cases yet to be decided is Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, which will address the question whether it was appropriate for Congress to give authority to the SEC to name the members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The case raises basic questions about the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches and potentially could address the question of the constitutionality of the Sarbanes Oxley Act.

Depending on how the Court rules, this case could potentially be very significant, particularly if the Court reaches the constitutionality question. As the WSJ.com Law Blog comments, "If the justices agree that the accounting board isn’t constitutional, it could force Congress to revisit Sarbanes-Oxley, or at least the portion of it that creates the accounting board. It could also call into question other independent agencies and how they appoint members of similar boards."

More World Cup Notes:

1. A tip of the hat to the Ghanians, who played with speed, skill and opportunism and did what they had to do to win an exhausting, exciting game.

2. A final salute to the Americans, too, who played all four of their games with heart and class and who are going home simply because there is a limit to how many times a team can come from behind. Landon Donovan's winning goal in extra time last Wednesday against Algeria is one of the great moments of this World Cup.

3. England's fans have to be beside themselves over Frank Lampard's disallowed goal late in the first half of their game against Germany. On the other hand, as unjust as the disallowance was, England pretty much got beat, by a clearly better team. .

4. The Mexicans have a legitimate gripe about Argentina's first goal on Sunday. Carlos Tevez was clearly offsides. However, poor officiating had nothing to do with the total defensive breakdown that allowed Gonzalo Higuain's goal for Argentina's second score, and the Argentiines' third goal was a magnificent strike from Tevez. The Germany/Argentina game next week should be terrific.

5. If, as seems likely at this point, FIFA spends the next four years trying to figure out how to improve  the offciating at the next World Cup, I hope they will also take a hard look at ways to better enforce the rules against embellishment. Too many players seem more inclined to flop than to play. It really is revolting.

6. The French don't have to worry about anybody disrespecting them, because there's really no need -- the French have done such a masterful job of it themselves. The Irish can be excused for any pleasure they might be taking from the French team's embarrassment.

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

In a long-awaited ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2010 issued an opinion affirming dismissal of the Morrison v. National Australia Bank case. Among other things, the Court’s opinion will limit securities claims by investors who bought their shares on foreign exchanges. This ruling could have a dramatic impact on many pending cases as well as on future filings.

Background

NAB is Australia’s largest bank. Its shares trade on securities exchanges in Australia, London, Tokyo and New Zealand. Its American Depositary Receipts trade on the New York Stock Exchange. NAB has a mortgage servicing subsidiary, HomeSide, based in Florida. In 2001, NAB disclosed that it was taking a significant write-down due to a recalculation of the amortized valuating of HomeSide’s mortgage servicing rights. Following this announcement, the price of NAB’s shares and ADRs declined, and investors filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York.

The claim was initially brought by four plaintiffs. One of the four purported to represent domestic purchasers of NAB’s securities. The three other plaintiffs bought their shares abroad and sought to represent a class of non-U.S. purchasers. Background regarding the case can be found here.　

On October 25, 2006, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the foreign claimants claim. The court dismissed the domestic plaintiff’s action for failure to state a claim because the domestic plaintiff failed to allege that he suffered damages. The three foreign plaintiffs appealed. The domestic plaintiff’s claim was not before the Second Circuit, and so the appellate court was exclusively concerned with the jurisdictional issue.

As discussed at greater length here, on October 23, 2008, the Second Circuit ruled (here) that U.S. courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of foreign claimants in that case who bought their NAB shares on a foreign exchange and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case. The Second Circuit found that the U.S. based conduct was not sufficient to support jurisdiction under the Circuit’s long-standing two-part test measuring whether there were sufficient domestic actions or effect to support jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari.

The Supreme Court’s Opinion

In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s holding, but overturned decades of jurisprudence on the question of the extraterritorial reach of the U.S. securities laws, holding that the U.S. securities laws do not apply extraterritorially.

The opinion opens with a recitation of the "longstanding principle of American law" that "when a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none." The opinion notes that despite this presumption, the Second Circuit over the course of many years developed an extensive body of case law intended to "discern" when Congress would have wanted the statute to apply. The opinion notes that "the Second Circuit never put forward a textual or even extratextual basis for these tests."

The opinion completely rejected this entire body of case law and the two-part test on which the Second Circuit had relied in this case, noting that "the results of this judicial-speculation-made-law – diving what Congress would have wanted if it had thought the situation before the court –demonstrate the wisdom of the presumption against extraterritoriality. Rather than guess anew in each case, we apply the presumption in all cases, preserving a stable background against which Congress can legislate with predictable effects."

The majority opinion rejected the arguments of the claimants and of the Solicitor General (that would be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the current Court nominee) that the securities laws contained statutory support for extraterritorial application, finding that "there is no clear indication in the Exchange Act that Section 10(b) applies extraterritorially, and we therefore conclude that it does not."

The opinion also specifically rejected the argument that the domestic conduct was sufficient to support jurisdiction, observing that "it is a rare case of prohibited extraterritorial application that lacks all contact with the territory of the United States."

What matters is not where alleged deceptive conduct occurred but where the securities were purchased:

The focus of the Exchange Act is not upon the place where the deception originated but upon purchases and sales of securities in the United States. Section 10(b) does not punish deceptive conduct, but only deceptive conduct "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered."

Based on this analysis, the Court concluded that "only transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges, and domestic transactions in other securities, to which Section 10(b) applies."

The Court also noted another reason for rejecting a standard that would allow jurisdiction for securities cases solely on the basis that the deceptive conduct took place in the U.S. That is, "some fear that [the U.S.] has become the Shangri-La of class-action litigation for lawyer representing those allegedly cheated in foreign securities markets."

Because this case "involves no securities listed on a domestic exchange, and all aspects of the purchases complained of by those petitioners who still have live claims occurred outside the United States" the Petitioners have "failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted" and the Court therefore affirmed the dismissal.

Justice Breyer wrote a separate opinion concurring in part in the opinion and concurring in the judgment, saying in effect it was sufficient for him that the securities involved in this case were not purchased in the U.S.

Justice Stevens wrote a separate concurring opinion, joining in the judgment, by rejecting the majority’s "transaction test." He would not have rejected the Second Circuit’s two-prong test, saying that the Second Circuit has "refined its test over several decades and dozens of cases, with the tacit approval of Congress and the Commission and with the general assent of its sister Circuits."

Justice Sotomayor did not take part in the case.

Discussion

The Supreme Court’s opinion in the NAB case seems to put an end to the so-called "f-cubed" cases – that is, claims brought in U.S. courts under U.S. securities laws by foreign domiciled claimants who bought their share in foreign companies on foreign exchanges. Indeed, the opinion seems to sound the death knell for any would-be claimants under the U.S. securities laws who bought their shares on foreign exchanges.

The opinion would seem to have very significant implications for the many pending cases in which the claims of claimants who bought shares on foreign exchanges are involved. Among other very high profile cases, the Vivendi case, which involved primarily foreign domiciled claimants and recently resulted in a plaintiff’s verdict, would seem to be subject to substantial reconsideration in light of this opinion. (UPDATE: At least one reader has raised the question whether the Court's holding will or even can be applied retroactively. to damages suffered before and purchases made before. I am not sure general prohibitions on retroactive application apply here, as this decision is about the basic reach of the securities laws, but I thought it was worth noting this question here.)

The Supreme Court’s transactional test would also seem to suggest that we have seen the end of filings in U.S. court against foreign companies, except those whose shares are traded on U.S. securities exchanges. (UPDATE: One reader has noted that the "except" clause in the prior sentence does raise the question about whether there might still be jurisdiction over "f-squared" cases, that is those that involve either foreign domiciled companies and foreign investors who bought their shares on U.S. exchanges, or foreign domiciled companies and U.S. investors who bought their shares on foreign exchanges. The first of these two categories seems to meet the test of the NAB case, the second category is a more interesting question. In any event these kinds of issues will have to be sorted out in lower courts in the wake of the NAB decision.)

My concern with that possibility is that it could lead foreign companies to decide not to list their shares on U.S. exchanges, or to delist their shares, as a way to avoid the burden and expense of U.S.-based litigation exposure.

It is entirely possible that this entire debate will now shift to Congress. Indeed, during the current Congressional term, there were specific proposals to incorporate a version of the two-prong test directly in the securities laws. While these proposals had been languishing, it is possible that the NAB opinion could give these proposals new life.

While Congress might now reconsider these proposals, one portion of the NAB opinion might weigh against these kinds of statutory revisions. The majority opinion specifically refers to the arguments of many foreign countries in amicus briefs that the extraterritorial application of U.S. securities laws would result in "interference with foreign securities regulation." These concerns and the requirements of comity, which are detailed in the majority opinion, could well weigh against the legislative reform.

But in any event, the Supreme Court’s opinion in the NAB case must now be applied in the lower courts. There are dozens of cases pending in the lower courts involving claimants who purchased their shares on foreign exchanges. These claimants will now be scrambling to try to establish some basis for their cases to be preserved notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s ruling in the NAB case. However, it seems probable that the foreign purchasers’ claims are likely to be dismissed. This will have significant implications for Vivendi and many other pending cases.

Andrew Longstreth's June 24, 2010 Am Law Litigation Daily artice about the decision can be found here.

Many thanks to the several loyal readers who send me copies of the Supreme Court's opinion.

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

Editor's Note: The corrected post is being republished to remedy an error in the prior email notification. The National Australia Bank case now awaiting decision before the United States Supreme Court raises what the Second Circuit in that same case called "the vexing question of the extraterritorial application of the [U.S.] securities laws." But while we all await the outcome of the NAB case, the lower courts are continuing to wrestle with these "vexing" questions. In two recent decisions in separate cases, two federal district court judges found they lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims under the U.S. securities laws against foreign domiciled companies. Each of these decisions involved different aspects of the jurisdictional question and each represents outcomes that are interesting in distinct ways.

These questions of the extraterritorial application of the U.S. securities laws are most apparent in cases involving so-called "f-cubed claimants" – that is, foreign domiciled investors who bought their securities in foreign domiciled companies on foreign exchanges. Many of the most noteworthy recent cases, including the NAB case itself, have arising in the context of f-cubed claimant cases. The Fairfax Financial Holding case discussed below represents another example of an f-cubed claimant case.

But the European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. case discussed below also involved a foreign domiciled company whose shares trade on foreign exchanges, but the plaintiff and the putative class consisted exclusively of U.S.-based investors. Thus, the EADS case represents an example of an "f-squared" case, as described in an April 10, 2010 memo (here) by lawyers from the Wachtell Lipton firm (who represented the EADS defendants in the EADS case) on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Reform. Nevertheless, though the case represented a lower jurisdictional exponent (i.e., squared rather than cubed) the court nonetheless found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as discussed below.

European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.: EADS is a public company organized under Dutch law and headquartered in the Netherlands. Its shares trade on Paris and Frankfurt stock exchanges, as well as on four Spanish exchanges. Its disclosures are governed by the laws of the European Union and its member states.

EADS shares are not traded on any U.S. exchange, although three U.S. banks have unsponsored American Depositary Receipts in EADS shares. EADS does not make filings with the SEC.

Bristol County Retirement System (a Massachusetts-based municipal employee retirement system) filed a securities complaint against EADS and three of its officers in the Southern District of New York on behalf of "all persons and entities residing in the United States" who purchased EADS shares during the class period. The complaint alleges that the defendants misled investors about production delays in the Airbus A380 super jumbo aircraft.

The defendants moved to dismiss alleging that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

In a March 26, 2010 ruling (here), Southern District of New York Judge William H. Pauley III granted defendants’ motion, finding that neither the alleged U.S.-based conduct nor the alleged U.S.-based effects were sufficient to support jurisdiction.

With respect to his finding that the plaintiffs’ allegations failed to meet the conduct test, Judge Pauley said:

This was a European fraud. EADS is headquartered in Europe. Its shares trade only on European exchanges. It is subject to regulation by the European Union and its member states. Its investor disclosures were prepared and disseminated in Europe. The A380 production difficulties transpired in Europe. Bristol County purchased EADS shares on a European exchange. The gravamen of the Complaint is that EADS’s fraudulent disclosures in Europe inflated its share price on European exchanges, causing Bristol County to lose Euros. The only thing American about this case is Bristol County.

Even though Bristol sought to represent a class only of U.S. investors, Judge Pauley concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet the effects test as well, ruling that "none of the putative class members are alleged to have acquired EADS shares on domestic securities markets." Judge Pauley added that "absent allegations linking the effects of the fraud to the United States, the federal securities laws do not reach this predominantly foreign fraud."

Interestingly, Judge Pauley found the plaintiff’s allegations did not meet the effects test despite the plaintiff’s contention that "there are seventy-three U.S. investors who hold 7 percent of EADS’s total outstanding shares," noting that these investors bought their shares overseas, and that even if some class members acquired shares as ADRs, absent a showing of a "substantial" effect on the purchasers, the "Court could not conclude the effects test has been met."

Judge Pauley also indicated that the doctrine of foreign non conveniens also separately supported dismissal, finding, among other things that the plaintiffs had an "adequate alternative forum" in European courts, notwithstanding the absence of class action procedures and the absence of recognition of the fraud on the market theory in those jurisdictions.

Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited: Fairfax is a Canadian financial holding company with a U.S.-based reinsurance operating unit. A Canadian investment fund, which bought its Fairfax shares in Canada, sued Fairfax in the Southern District of New York in a securities class action lawsuit, alleging that Fairfax had manipulated its reported financial results by improperly accounting for certain reinsurance contracts entered by its U.S.-based unit.

Though the named plaintiff bought its shares in Canada, Fairfax’s subordinate voting shares trade on the NYSE, and Fairfax has filed reports with the SEC.

In a March 29, 2010 opinion (here), Southern District of New York Judge George B. Daniels granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Daniels found that "this case involves Canadian plaintiffs who bought shares of a Canadian company on a Canadian exchange" and that "neither the conduct nor the effects test provides a jurisdictional basis."

Judge Daniels found that the "allegations concerning United States based conduct are severely limited, both in number and jurisdictional significance." Though Fairfax’s U.S.-based reinsurance unit entered into the questioned transactions, the allegedly misleading financial statements were prepared in Canada. The U.S. unit’s conduct "may have contributed to the alleged scheme," but it was "Fairfax’s alleged conduct in Canada that defrauded investors and caused an inflated stock price."

Even thought the plaintiffs alleged an impact on U.S. markets and on U.S. investors, Judge Daniels found "the United States interest affected in this action is minimal, at best," particularly given that "this case involves foreign purchasers who acquired securities in a foreign exchange" and the lead plaintiff "fails to allege that any shares were bought or sold by investors on the New York Stock Exchange."

Though there are U.S. investors and though Fairfax has filed reports with the SEC, the lead plaintiff "fails to indicate that any conduct in Canada caused a United States investor to suffer a loss," and "conclusory allegations that Defendants’ fraud had a significant effect on unnamed Fairfax securities holders in the United States are insufficient."

Discussion

At least at the surface level, these cases are about nothing more than what the courts found the plaintiffs failed to allege. The inference is that with different allegations, the cases might have been permitted to proceed.

As a different level, however, these cases may be more about an unstated but evident judicial reluctance to impose U.S. securities laws on foreign companies in connection with securities transactions that took place outside the U.S. Because there is (at least not yet) no definitive legal authority that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over extraterritorial transactions involving non-U.S. companies (whether or not the claimant is based in the U.S.), these courts both described their rulings in terms of the insufficiency of the plaintiffs’ allegations. However, in neither case were plaintiffs allowed to amend in order to attempt to cure the pleading defects.

Where you come out on the question whether or not these cases were correctly decided may well depend on how you feel about allowing U.S. courts to entertain cases under the U.S. securities laws against foreign domiciled companies, particularly with respect to transactions that took place outside the U.S. The plaintiffs in these cases may well feel aggrieved that a case, on the one hand, on behalf of exclusively U.S.-based investors, and, on the other hand, on against a company whose shares trade on U.S. exchanges and which files reports with the SEC, were not permitted to proceed in U.S. courts.

Defense-inclined observers may feel these courts appropriately declined jurisdiction. These observers may well contend that the mere presence of U.S-based investors alone without more arguably should not be enough to support jurisdiction, for the simple reason that there are very few investment vehicles of any kind any where in the world that do not have some U.S. investor involvement. If the mere presence of U.S. investors alone were sufficient to support jurisdiction, there would be few companies or transactions beyond the potential liability reach of the U.S. securities laws.

There is, however, a larger question here, which is whether U.S. securities laws appropriate should ever be applied to impose potential liability on non-U.S. companies and corporate officials in connection with transactions that took place outside the U.S. It might fairly be argued that to apply U.S.-based liability principles in this context might be an inappropriate extraterritorial extension of U.S. law to persons and transactions more appropriately regulated by the laws of other jurisdictions. One might argue that principles of comity and judicial restraint weigh against the U.S. courts’ exercise of jurisdiction.

The NAB base now awaiting decision at the U.S. Supreme Court may well address these larger principles, although the requirements of the specific case before the court may lead the court to rule narrowly, for example, declining jurisdiction without saying more about the circumstances under which jurisdiction is appropriate and how principles of comity might weigh in the analysis. These cases do raise difficult questions of legal authority and reach in a complex global economy.

As the cases above demonstrate, these issues will continue to arise, and absent definitive guidance from the Supreme Court – or Congress – the lower courts will continue to sort their way through these issues.

Andrew Longstreth’s March 31, 2010 AmLaw Litigation Daily article about these two cases can be found here. The 10b-5 Daily’s post about the EADS case can be found here. My initial post about the EADS case at the time the case was first filed can be found here.

Justice Stevens: The papers this weekend are full of articles about the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens and his possible replacement. Perhaps in anticipation of these events, a couple weeks ago the New Yorker ran a March 22, 2010 biographical sketch of Stevens (here) written by the journalist and Court observer, Jeffrey Toobin. The article draws an interesting portrait of Stevens as the last of a dying breed, the moderate Republican. I recommend the article. It conveys a strong sense of the role that Stevens has played on the Court, particularly in recent years, as well as the possible consequences his departure may have going forward.

Advisen Quarterly Securities Litigation Webinar: On Friday April 16, 2010, I will be participating in an Advisen webinar, entitled "First Quarter Securities Litigation Review," to discuss first quarter 2010 securities lawsuit filings as well as other first quarter securities litigation developments. Other participants in the webinar, which will take place at 11:00 am EDT, include Ken Ross from Willis, ACE’s Scott Meyer, Wilkie Farr’s Michael Young, and Advisen’s David Bradford. Advisen’s Jim Blinn will moderate. Registration information for the webinar can be found here.

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

Courts in the financial center of New York and the tech hotspot of California tend to be where much of the headline grabbing securities law action usually takes place. But this week, the most significant action is in  Washington, D.C., as the Supreme Court and Congress are weighing into several of the hottest topic under the U.S. securities laws.

First, on Monday, November 30, 2009, the Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari in the National Australia Bank case. As a result of taking the case, the Supreme Court is likely to confront generally the question of extraterritorial application of the U.S. federal securities law and will address specifically the question of when U.S. court can properly exercise jurisdiction over securities law claims of so-called "f-cubed" claimants (that is, foreign investors who bought their shares in foreign-domiciled companies on foreign exchanges.) Background on the NAB case can be found here.

Second, and also on Monday, November 30, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Merck Vioxx case, in which the Court will address the question of what is required in order to establish "inquiry notice" sufficient to trigger the two-year statute of limitations for private securities lawsuits under the ’34 Act. Background on the Merck case can be found here.

Third, on December 2, 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on Senator Arlen Specter’s proposed legislation entitled "The Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009," which is calculated to set aside the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in the Twobley and Iqbal cases. These cases define standards for threshold pleading issues in all federal civil cases, including securities cases. A discussion on the background on the significance of the Iqbal decision for securities cases can be found here.

A link for the Senate Judiciary Committee session, which is entitled "Has the Supreme Court Limited Americans’ Access to Justice?," can be found here. The Committee hearing will be webcast and a link of the webcast can be found on the Committee’s hearings webpage.

Each of these developments has potential to work sufficient alterations to important aspects of the securities laws or to their application.

The NAB case potentially could represent a very significant milestone on the issue of the overseas reach of domestic securities laws in a global economy. The Merck case, though focused on a technical statute of limitations issues, could have important practical consequences (particularly these days when for whatever reason plaintiffs’ lawyers increasingly seem to be filing cases belatedly). Finally, Senator Specter’s bill could produce significant changes on the threshold pleading standards for all civil cases, including securities cases.

A November 30, 2009 Law.com article (here) suggests that the Supreme Court showed substantial skepticism that there were sufficient "storm warnings" earlier on that would have put plaintiffs on "inquiry notice" sufficient to trigger the running of the statute of limitations. Ashby Jones also has an interesting post on the WSJ.com Law Blog (here) about the oral argument.

Soon Everyone Will Have a Blog: A column in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reports (here) that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad maintains a blog, called "Mahmoud Ahmadinajad’s Personal Memos." (No link supplied here, it just seems ill-advised to visit the site). Not only does Ahmadinajad have a blog, but his blogging experience is one to which many bloggers – including your humble correspondent -- can relate. The column reports that Ahmadinajad "allots himself 15 minutes a week to write his blog, but admits that at times, he exceeds this limit."

Yes, it really is hard finding time when you have important things to blog about, particularly when that pesky day job can interfere with important blogging activities. (For the record, I allot myself more than 15 minutes a week for blogging.)

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

The D&O Diary is pleased to present the following guest blog post, written by Angelo Savino (pictured),  a partner at the Cozen & O’Connor law firm. Angelo is resident in the firm’s New York office. Angelo’s guest blog post follows:

As noted in prior posts (here), the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to grant certiorari in the National Australia Bank ("NAB") case, which involves foreign-cubed or f-cubed litigation. At the Court’s invitation, the Solicitor General and the SEC have now weighed in with the government’s position by submitting a joint brief.

Oddly, as noted by 10b-5 Daily, the government argues that (1) every Circuit Court that has considered the extraterritorial reach of the federal securities laws since Judge Friendly’s 1975 decision in Bersch has focused on the wrong issue and (2) there is currently a conflict among the Circuits regarding the standard to be applied to foreign-cubed cases under the cause test, but that the Court should nevertheless deny certiorari. Ironically, the government’s position may increase the likelihood that the Court will grant cert.

Background

NAB involved claims on behalf of a class of foreign purchasers of stock in NAB, an Australian corporation, on foreign exchanges. The complaint alleged accounting irregularities at NAB’s Florida mortgage servicing subsidiary, Homeside, that were transmitted to NAB headquarters in Australia and incorporated into NAB’s financial statements, which were then disseminated from outside the U.S. The District Court dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the Second Circuit affirmed.

In considering the extraterritorial reach of the U.S. securities laws, the Second Circuit applied the cause test, which the Court articulated as follows: "subject matter jurisdiction exists if activities in this country were more than merely preparatory to a fraud and culpable acts or omissions occurring here directly caused losses to investors abroad." Relying on two 1975 decisions by Judge Henry Friendly – Bersch v. Drexel Firestone Inc. and IIT v. Vencap Ltd., the Court sought to identify which actions constituted the fraud and directly caused harm, or as the Court stated elsewhere in the opinion "what is central or at the heart of a fraudulent scheme."

Applying the above standard, the Court held that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist because NAB, not Homeside, was the publicly traded company and its executives at the Australian headquarters were primarily responsible for the company’s public filings, relations with investors, and public statements. Thus, the conduct that directly caused any loss occurred outside the U.S.

Thereafter, the plaintiff petitioned for cert. and the Supreme Court invited the government to submit its view on the petition. Although the SEC had previously submitted an amicus brief to the Second Circuit siding with the plaintiff and asserting that subject matter jurisdiction existed in the case, its current brief urges the Supreme Court to deny cert. because, although the Second Circuit analyzed the wrong issue, it reached the correct result.

Discussion

The most striking aspect of the government’s analysis is the assertion, contrary to the jurisprudence of the last 34 years, that "the geography of an alleged fraudulent scheme – i.e., whether it was conceived and executed in whole or in part outside the United States – is irrelevant to the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction." Instead, the government would engraft a geographical component onto the 10b-5 cause of action. The government notes that in cases of transnational fraud, a private plaintiff should be required to demonstrate a direct causal link between his injury and the U.S. portion of the alleged scheme. The government concluded that, in this case, the link between Homeside’s accounting numbers and the harm to the plaintiffs was too attenuated because, as the Second Circuit explained, the numbers had to pass through numerous checkpoints manned by NAB’s Australian personnel before reaching investors.

In an action by the SEC, however, the government asserts that the transnational nature of a fraudulent scheme is relevant only insofar as it has a sufficient connection to the United States to bring it within section 10(b)’s substantive prohibition. This begs the question what is a sufficient connection. The government’s answer this time is to characterize Homeside’s conduct as integral to the overall scheme and, therefore, sufficient to support an SEC enforcement action.

So after trashing the analytical method applied by every court to consider the extraterritorial reach of the securities laws over the last 34 years, the government next concludes that the conduct at Homeside is insufficient for foreign private plaintiffs but sufficient for an SEC action. This tends to give the government’s analysis the appearance of intellectual gymnastics designed to preserve or extend its own ability to bring cases. It seems more analytically satisfying to accept the traditional jurisdictional analysis as correct, and require foreign-cubed plaintiffs to satisfy the cause test while requiring the SEC to demonstrate satisfaction of the effects test, which focuses on harm to U.S. investors and U.S. markets. Moreover, to the extent that the SEC seeks, in a given case, to prevent export of fraud from the U.S., it should rightly bear the burden on a motion to dismiss of demonstrating that the resources of U.S. courts are appropriately being used, as it would if the issue is jurisdictional, but not if it is part of the 10b-5 cause of action. The government’s analytical model would shift that burden for private plaintiffs as well, making it more likely that they would bring more actions in U.S. courts.

The government’s brief also recognizes the existence of a split among the Circuits, but characterizes it as "much less pronounced than petitioners contend." Different Circuits have in fact articulated different formulations of the cause test, as noted in the brief. Add to that calculus, the Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in the CP Ships case, affirming a District Court’s finding of subject matter jurisdiction in a case that, like NAB, involved alleged accounting irregularities at the Florida subsidiary of a foreign company whose stock traded predominantly on foreign exchanges. The apparent inconsistencies among the Circuits, of course, may simply be the product of the fact-intensive inquiry inherent in analyzing causation regardless of how courts articulate the cause test. But even then, it would be preferable to have a single nationwide standard. Nevertheless, the government concludes that NAB is not a suitable vehicle for resolving the conflict because the petitioners identify no case indicating that any other Circuit would allow their suit to go forward.

Conclusion

The government’s arguments seem motivated by a concern that analyzing foreign-cubed cases as a jurisdictional issue and using the Second Circuit’s short-hand formulation of the cause test (where did the heart of the fraud occur?) could prevent the SEC from bringing enforcement actions in certain cases. The government’s reasoning, however, seems to miss the mark. The cause test will have an impact primarily, if not solely, in the foreign-cubed context where there is a foreign plaintiff. The SEC will be bringing cases generally when it perceives an effect on U.S. investors or markets and may, therefore, be evaluated under the effects test. Alternatively, it will need to justify invoking the power of the U.S. courts to protect primarily foreign interests by demonstrating domestic conduct that directly caused the losses. In any event, the jurisdictional analysis rightly places the burden of demonstrating that the action should proceed on the party bringing the case, which the government’s suggested analytical model would not, at least at the motion to dismiss stage.

Despite believing that courts have been misanalyzing the issue for over three decades and despite recognizing a split in the Circuits, the government urges the Court to deny cert. By stressing these issues in its brief, however, the government may very well persuade the Court of the need to resolve these questions in an era of increasing globalization of the capital markets and increasing incidence of foreign-cubed litigation.

The D&O Diary is very grateful to Angelo Savino for submitting this article for publication on this site. I welcome draft proposed guest posts from other authors. Anyone interested in submitting a proposed guest post should just drop me a note using this blog’s contact function (see the Contact link in the right hand column, above).

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

In a rare case in which a securities suit is actually going to trial, on Monday a jury was empanelled in the Vivendi securities class action lawsuit pending in the Southern District of New York. An October 5, 2009 New York Times article summarizing the background of the case can be found here. A more detailed description of the case can be found here.

The Vivendi trial is unusual in another respect – it involves the claims of so-called "f-cubed" claimants, as detailed in an October 5, 2009 AmLaw Litigation Daily article by Andrew Longstreth (here). That is, the case involves claims by foreign shareholders of a foreign domiciled company who bought their shares on foreign exchanges.

However, because of March 22, 2007 class certification rulings by Southern District of New York Judge Richard Holwell, the class on whose behalf the claims are asserted does not include all potential f-cubed claimants. That is, though the class includes claimants from France, England and the Netherlands, it does not include investors from Austria and Germany.

As the AmLaw Litigation Daily article notes, plaintiffs’ lawyers, who are keenly interested in bringing claims in U.S. courts on behalf of foreign investors, will be watching this case closely.

As noted in a prior post (here), the question of the extraterritorial application of the U.S. securities laws is a current hot topic that could well wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court this term. In addition, as noted here, subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of f-cubed claimants is one of the issues addressed in financial reform legislation recently introduced in Congress.

The Vivendi case is actually the second securities class action lawsuit to go to trial this year. As detailed here, on May 7, 2009, a jury in the Northern District of Illinois entered a mixed verdict in the plaintiffs’ favor in the Household International securities suit.

As reported on the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here), only 21 cases (prior to Vivendi) have gone trial since the 1995 enactment of the PSLRA. Only seven of the 21 cases (including the Household International case) that have gone to a verdict involved conduct that occurred after the PSLRA was enacted. Accounting for post trial motions and appeals (and post-appeal trials), with respect to the seven cases, the current scoreboard standings show three wins for the plaintiffs and four for the defendants.

Credit Suisse Subprime Suit DIsmissed on Jurisdictional Grounds: In a topically related development that also took place in the Southern District of New York yesterday, on October 5, 2009, Judge Victor Marrero released his opinion (here) explaining his prior September 28, 2009 dismissal, on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction,  of the subpime securities class action lawsuit that had been filed against Credit Suisse and certain of its directors and officers.

As described in greater detail here, the plaintiffs had alleged that the defendants misrepresented the company's financial condition by failing to disclose schemes to overstate assets, underestimate risk, hide subprime exposure, and ignore weaknesses in risk management and internal controls. The risk management and internal control allegations referred to the criminal prosecution of two former U.S.-based Credit Suisse employees, Julian Tzolov and Eric Butler, in connection with their sale of securities to customers of the bank, about which refer here.

In considering the sufficiency of the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the case, Judge Marrero divided the question between the claims of foreign-domiciled claimants who bought their shares in the foreign-domiciled claimants on a foreign exchange (the "f-cubed" claimants) and the claims of claimants who had bought ADRs on the NYSE. Approximately 4.1% of investors had bought their investment through ADRs on the NYSE.

Judge Marrero concluded that the court did not have jurisdiction over the f-cubed claimants,  observing that the plaintiffs "have not adequately alleged or otherwise demonstrated that hte fraudulent schemes...were concocted or masterminded in the United States." He found further that the allegedly misleading statements had originated abroad, and the wrongful acts alleged in the United States (even the alleged criminal misconduct of the two former Credit Suisse employees) fail to satisfy the conduct test for the exercise of jurisdiction over the claims of foreign claimants.

Judge Marrero also held that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of investors who bought ADRs on the NYSE, holding that he could not conclude that the plaintiffs "have demonstrated the required effects on United States investors." This latter result appears largely to be due to "lack of information" and "lack of briefing" on the plaintiffs' part. (Among other things, the amended complaint neglects to specify the domicile of the proposed lead plaintiffs who had bought ADRs on the NYSE.)

Judge Marrero allowed the plaintiffs 20 days to file a motion in which to attempt to show why allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint would not be futile.

The contrast between the events yesterday in the Southern District of New York courthouse involving these two cases could not be more stark. On the one hand, a jury is being empanelled with respect to the claims of the f-cubed claimants in the Vivendi case, which appears likely to head to a verdict. Yet in the same courthouse, Judge Marrero issued an opinion in whch he concluded that the court lacked subject matter over the claims of the f-cubed claimants. To be sure, this stark difference between the way the two cases have fared in the courthouse may simply be a reflection of underlying differences between the cases. Nevertheless, the contrast is stark.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the October 5 opinion.

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

While we wait to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the pending petition for a writ of certiorari in connection with the Second Circuit’s recent landmark opinion in the Morrison v, National Australia Bank case, the lower courts must continue to wrestle with questions regarding the extraterritorial application of the U.S. securities laws, particularly with respect to the claims of so-called "f-cubed" or "foreign-cubed claimants" – that is, foreign domiciled investors who bought their shares in foreign companies on foreign exchanges.

In an interesting August 13, 2009 decision in the C.P. Ships Ltd. class action securities lawsuit (here), the Eleventh Circuit distinguished the Second Circuit’s holding in Morrison and concluded that in that case the district court had properly exercised jurisdiction over the claims of the f-cubed claimants under the circumstances presented. The decision illustrates how these jurisdictional issues can arise in a surprisingly broad variety of procedural contexts and also shows how the cases continue to raise complex jurisdictional and policy concerns as well.

Background

C.P. Ships Ltd. is a Canadian company with its headquarters in the United Kingdom that also conducts "crucial headquarters activities" (that were central to the alleged fraud) in Tampa, Florida. The company’s shares trade on the New York and Toronto Stock Exchanges.

In 2004, the company transitioned to a single accounting platform. Later, the company disclosed that the transition had caused it to understate its operational costs. The company’s share price declined and investors initiated lawsuits in the both U.S. and Canadian courts. Background regarding the U.S. action can be found here.

On April 5, 2007, the district court dismissed the U.S. securities lawsuit (refer here), and the plaintiffs appealed. While the appeal was pending, the parties agreed to settle for $1.3 million. The settlement class included claims of some foreigners but, the Eleventh Circuit stated, it "specifically excludes the claims of Canadian citizens who purchased CP stock" on the Toronto exchange.

A Canadian investor who bought his shares on the NYSE, Allen Germain, objected to the settlement on behalf of Canadian investors who, like himself, bought their shares on the NYSE, as well as on behalf of other foreign investors who purchased their shares on the Toronto exchange. Among other things, Germain asserted that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over these investors’ claims. The district court overruled Germain’s objections and approved the settlement. Germain appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit’s Opinion

Even though Germain bought his shares on the NYSE and therefore lacked standing to represent the interests of foreign investors who bought their shares on the Toronto exchange, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the jurisdictional issues of both groups of foreign claimants, "because of our obligation to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte,"noting that there do not in any event appear to be many of the latter group of investors.

After observing that the ’34 Act is "silent as to its extraterritorial application," the court reviewed the two jurisdictional tests for transnational securities frauds, the "conduct" test and the "effects" test, the court concluded that the Complaint "alleges ample facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction under the ‘conduct text’ over unnamed foreign class members who purchased" their shares on the Toronto exchange, and therefore it did not need to address the "effects" test.

In arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the foreign investors’ claims, Germain sought to rely on the Second Circuit’s holding in Morrison, in which the court there had found that because the principal activities supporting the alleged fraud had taken place in Australia, rather than at the company’s Florida-based subsidiary, the district court in that case lacked jurisdiction. Germain argued that the U.S.-based activities alleged in the C.P. Ships case were merely preparatory, and that the alleged misrepresentations appeared in connection with the company’s overseas release of its financial statements that were prepared overseas.

The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the Morrison case was "distinguishable," because in Morrison case, "all of the executives bearing responsibility to present accurate information to the investing public, and all the actions in supervising and verifying the information, occurred in Australia."

By contrast, in the CP Ships case, where the company’s CEO was based in Tampa, the Eleventh Circuit said "not only did the manipulation and falsification of numbers occur in Florida, the executives with responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of the accounting data operated from Florida." The court also found that the chain of causation in the CP Ships case between the conduct in the U.S. and the alleged fraud "was direct and immediate," by contrast to the Morrison case.

Based on its conclusion that the Morrison case was distinguishable due to the difference in factual allegations, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction. The court further concluded that the district court had properly overruled Germain’s objections to the settlement, and accordingly the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s approval of the settlement.

Discussion

Even though the Second Circuit held there was no subject matter jurisdiction in the Morrison case itself, its holding (and in particular its rejection of the "bright line" test urged by some parties and amici) expressly recognized the possibility that under certain circumstances it would be appropriate for U.S. courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of "f-cubed" claimants. The CP Ships case provides an example where a court concluded that such a jurisdictional exercise is held to be appropriate.

The implication of these cases is that these jurisdictional issues are very fact dependent and must be decided on a case by case basis. By the same token, the Eleventh Circuit’s careful analysis of the difference in the allegations between the CP Ships case and the Morrison case in effect provides a road map for plaintiffs seeking to establish U.S. court jurisdiction for the claims of f-cubed claimants.

This analysis is all very pragmatic and measured, but still it arguably disregards the larger policy question of whether or to what extent U.S. courts should be implementing what is in effect the extraterritorial application of U.S. securities laws. It is worth reflecting that in addition to the U.S. court action involving CP Ships, a separate action involving the same issues was pending in Canadian courts. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision says remarkably little about the significance of this parallel proceeding and how its existence ought to affect the U.S. court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the claims of foreign claimants.

These questions about the extraterritorial application of U.S. securities laws matter, because, as analyses of the 2008 securities class action lawsuit filings all show (refer for example, here), foreign-domiciled companies increasingly are the targets of U.S. securities class action lawsuits.

Moreover, while most of these cases involve companies whose shares trade on U.S. securities exchanges, some do not. For example, EADS, whose shares do not trade on the U.S. exchanges, is the target of a U.S. securities lawsuit (about which refer here)

Indeed concerns about these extraterritoriality issues clearly have influenced at least some courts to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the claims of foreign domiciled investors (refer for example here, with regard to the case involving AstraZeneca).

Perhaps if the U.S. Supreme Court grants the writ of certiorari in the Morrison case, these larger policy concerns will be addressed.

But in the meantime the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in the CP Ships case demonstrates that even after the Second Circuit’s ruling in Morrison, there are circumstances where courts will conclude that their exercise of subject matter jurisdiction – even with respect to the claims of f-cubed claimants – is appropriate.

This possibility creates an obvious liability concern for potentially affected companies outside the U.S. It also presents a challenge for D&O underwriters, who must factor into their risk analysis of companies outside the U.S. the possibility of those companies facing securities liability exposure under the U.S. securities laws. And as the EADS case shows, this exposure may not even be limited to companies whose shares trade on the U.S. securities exchanges – the exposure potentially could extend even to companies whose shares trade only on exchanges outside the U.S.

One thing that is clear is that in an increasingly global economy, the question of the cross-border application of domestic securities laws is a serious and growing concern.

The "Ultimate Solution" to Securities Fraud?: According to an August 6, 2009 Associated Press article entitled "China Executes Two for Defrauding Investors" (here), China executed two business people for defrauding hundreds of investors out of about $127 million, calling the scam "a serious blow to social stability."

The article reports that Du Yimin, a beauty parlor owner, collected more than $102.5 million from hundreds of investors promising them monthly returns up to ten percent, from investments in beauty parlors, real estate and mining businesses. She spent most of the money on houses, cars and luxury items. The second defendant collected $24 million from 300 investors in a separate scam by saying they could received interest up to 108 percent.

Bernard Madoff’s 150-year prison sentence looks positively restrained by comparison.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for the link to the AP story.

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

In a November 26, 2008 opinion (here), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit asserting securities law violations against InVision and certain of its directors and officers based on FCPA-related disclosures. The case is noteworthy not only for its involvement of FCPA-related allegations, but also for the appellate court’s consideration of "collective scienter" issues, as well as of the significance of Sarbanes-Oxley certification issues.

Background

On March 15, 2004, InVision announced it would be acquired by GE in a cash-for-stock transaction. That same day, the company filed its annual filing on Form 10-K to which the merger agreement was attached. On July 30, 2004, InVision announced that an internal investigation had revealed possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The company voluntarily reported the activities to the SEC and the DOJ. The company later entered negotiated arrangements with the DOJ and the SEC (refer here). GE later consummated the pending merger.

Shortly after InVision announced the FCPA concerns, shareholders initiated a securities class action lawsuit against the company and certain of its directors and officers. (Refer here for further background regarding the case). The plaintiffs based their claims on three alleged misstatements in the merger agreements, which InVision had attached to its 10-K.

The plaintiffs alleged that the merger agreement misleadingly stated that the company was "in compliance … with all applicable law"; in compliance with the "books and records" provision of the FCPA; and that that neither the company nor any of its officers, directors or employees had knowledge that the company had violated the FCPA’s antibribery provisions.

The district court dismissed the complaint and the plaintiffs appealed.

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision

The appellate court essentially assumed that the plaintiff had satisfied the requirement to plead falsity with respect to the three alleged misrepresentations stating that "even if [the plaintiff, Glazer] properly pled falsity, the district court’s dismissal would still be appropriate if Glazer failed to plead scienter adequately with respect to the three statements."

In order to satisfy the scienter requirement, the plaintiff urged the Ninth Circuit to adopt the "collective scienter" theory, following the Second Circuit’s recent decision in the Dynex Capital case (refer here) and the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in the Tellabs case (refer here). Under this theory, as articulated by the Seventh Circuit, "it is possible to draw a strong inference of corporate scienter without being able to name the individuals who concocted and disseminated the fraud."

After reviewing the case law concerning corporate securities liability, including its own prior decision in the Nordstrom v. Chubb case (a decision that will be familiar to many of this blog’s readers), the Ninth Circuit ultimately concluded that this case did not require the court to decide whether or not to adopt the theory of collective scienter.

The court concluded that because of "the limited nature and unique context of the alleged misstatements" involved in the case, the "collective scienter" issue was not before the court. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that

Glazer rests its securities fraud claim on three statements, all of which appear in a sixty-page legal document. If the doctrine of collective scienter excuses Glazer from pleading individual scienter with respect to these legal warranties, then it is difficult to imagine what statements would not qualify for an exception to individualized scienter pleadings. In fact, because the merger agreement warranted that the company was in compliance "with all laws," then under the collective scienter theory urged by Glazer, so long as any employee at InVision had knowledge of the violation of any law, scienter could be imputed to the company as a whole. This result would be plainly inconsistent with the pleading requirements of the PSLRA.

 

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit held that in order to succeed on his claim, the plaintiff had to establish that individual defendants acted with scienter in making the statements in the merger agreement. The court said that "we see no way that [the defendant] could show that the corporation, but not any individual [director or officer] had the requisite intent to defraud." Only the company’s CEO and CFO had signed the merger agreement, and the plaintiff alleged scienter only with respect to the CEO, Magistri.

The court found with respect to Magistri, however, that Glazer had not pled any facts to demonstrate that "Magistri was personally aware of the illegal payments or that he was actively involved in the details of the details of InVision’s Asian sales."

The Ninth Circuit also refused to infer scienter from the CEO’s and the CFO’s signature of the Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, holding that the mere signature, without more, is insufficient to raise a strong inference of scienter.The Ninth Circuit followed prior decisions of the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits, concluding that there was no evidence that the SOX certification requirements were intended to alter the PSLRA’s pleading requirements. The Court said that "the Sarbanes-Oxley certification is only probative of scienter if the person signing the certification was severely reckless in certifying the accuracy of the financial statements.

Discussion

The Ninth Circuit’s decision is noteworthy for its discussion of the "collective scienter" issue, although in the end it is of limited significance on this point given the court’s conclusion that it did not need to reach that issue. The decision is also noteworthy for its discussion of the Sarbanes-Oxley certification issue, but in that respect it also merely followed existing precedent.

But perhaps the greatest significance about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion may be what it suggests about securities cases based on FCPA-related disclosures. The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to allow the claim to proceed in the absence of allegations that senior officials were aware of the improper conduct could present a significant hurdle for FCPA-related securities claims, at least in the circuits that have not adopted the "collective scienter" theory.

As the Ninth Circuit noted in the InVision case, "the surreptitious nature of the transactions creates an equally strong inference that the payments would have deliberately kept secret – even within the company." Obviously, payments of this kind invariably are of a surreptitious nature and of a kind that would be kept secret, even within the company. The implication is that in order for a securities claim alleging FCPA-related disclosures to survive the initial pleadings stage, the claimants may have to plead that the company officials who prepared the company’s public disclosures were aware of the improper activities.

In prior posts (most recently here), I have noted the increasing prevalence of follow-on civil litigation accompanying FCPA investigations, including the increasing frequency of follow-on securities litigation alleging misrepresentations in the FCPA-related disclosures. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in the InVision case suggests that, at least in jurisdictions that have not recognized the collective scienter theory, the ability of these follow-on securities lawsuits to get past the pleading stage may depend on the existence of allegations that senior company officials were aware of the improper payments. Given the invariably "surreptitious nature" of these payments, claimants may find this a challenging requirement to satisfy.

The SEC Actions blog has a thorough analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s discussion of the pleading issues in the InVision case, here. The FCPA Blog also has a good discussion of the case, here.

Special thanks to Neil McCarthy of Lawyerlinks.com for providing me with a copy of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.

Another New Wave Securities Lawsuit: In a recent post (here), I noted that there have been several recent securities class action lawsuits in which the companies involved have been hit with significant losses due to wrong way bets on commodities or currencies.

The latest example of this type of securities litigation involves a case filed on November 26, 2008 in the Southern District of Florida against Brazilian forest products manufacturer Aracruz Cellulose S.A. and certain of its directors and officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company’s American Depositary Receipts on the NYSE., as well as purchasers of the company’s common stock, which trades on the Sao Paulo Bovespa.

According to the plaintiffs’ lawyer November 26 press release (here), the complaint alleges that

During the Class Period, Aracruz entered into undisclosed currency derivative contracts to purportedly hedge against the Company's U.S. dollar exposure. The Company characterized the use of these contracts as protection against foreign interest rate volatility and assured investors that this type of trading did not represent "a risk from an economic and financial standpoint." However, these contracts violated Company policy in that they were far larger than necessary to hedge normal business operations. As a result of Aracruz's clandestine and speculative currency wagers, credit rating agencies downgraded Aracruz, the Company's CFO resigned, and Aracruz's stock suffered a severe decline, plummeting to the lowest levels in 14 years.

As I noted in my prior post, many companies were also exposed to sudden and unexpected losses by dramatic changes in the commodities and currencies markets earlier this year. For example, the November 29, 2008 Wall Street Journal reported (here) on several airlines that have recently reported the negative impact from fuel cost hedges that generated huge losses. These kinds of developments and other unexpected fallout from the crisis roiling global financial markets are likely to affect a wide variety of companies, some of which may be subject to securities litigation.

It is interesting to note that the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the Aracruz case appear to have made a conscious decision to include within the class the Brazilian company’s common shareholders. Within this group are likely to be a number of shareholders domiciled outside the U.S. that bought their shares against the foreign company on a foreign exchange. The presence of these so-called "foreign-cubed" litigants could pose subject matter jurisdiction issues, at least as to those claimants.

My recent post discussing the Second Circuit’s recent "foreign-cubed" litigant ruling in the National Australia Bank case can be found here. The November 24, 2008 Southern District of New York decision granting the motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit that had been filed against Vodafone for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, in reliance upon the National Australia Bank decision, can be found here. (Note: Special thanks to the reader who pointed out that I had incorrectly referred to the Vodafone case as the Vivendi case. My apologies for any confusion.)

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

On October 23, 2008, in a much-anticipated decision addressing what it called "the vexing question of the extraterritorial application of the securities laws," the Second Circuit in the National Australia Bank (NAB) case ruled (here) that U.S. courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of foreign claimants in that case who bought their NAB shares on a foreign exchange. Although the Second Circuit did not, as friends-of-the-court had urged, pronounce a bright line rule against jurisdiction in such "f-cubed" claims, it nevertheless provided guidelines that will be relevant to similar cases going forward.

Background

NAB is Australia’s largest bank. Its shares trade on securities exchanges in Australia, London, Tokyo and New Zealand. Its American Depositary Receipts trade on the New York Stock Exchange. NAB has a mortgage servicing subsidiary, HomeSide, based in Florida. In 2001, NAB disclosed that it was taking a significant write-down due to a recalculation of the amortized valuating of HomeSide’s mortgage servicing rights. Following this announcement, the price of NAB’s shares and ADRs declined, and investors filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York.

The claim was initially brought by four plaintiffs. One of the four purported to represent domestic purchasers of NAB’s securities. The three other plaintiffs bought their shares abroad and sought to represent a class of non-U.S. purchasers. Background regarding the case can be found here.

On October 25, 2006, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the foreign claimants claim. The court dismissed the domestic plaintiff’s action for failure to state a claim because the domestic plaintiff failed to allege that he suffered damages. The three foreign plaintiffs appealed. The domestic plaintiff’s claim was not before the Second Circuit, and so the appellate court was exclusively concerned with the jurisdictional issue.

The Second Circuit’s Opinion

In its October 23 opinion, written by Judge Barrington Parker, the Second Circuit noted that the "difficulty of the case was heightened by its novelty" – that is, the involvement of so-called "foreign-cubed" claimants. The appellees and several amici had urged the Second Circuit to adopt a "bright-line rule" by holding that in "foreign-cubed" securities litigation that mere domestic conduct should not be enough for a U.S. court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction where the conduct had no effect in the U.S. Links to the briefs for the parties and the amici can be found here. My prior post detailing the issues surrounding "f-cubed claims" generally can be found here.

The Second Circuit duly acknowledged what it characterized as the "parade of horribles" the friends-of-the-court invoked in favor of a bright line test, including the possibility that exercising jurisdiction in those cases could bring U.S. securities laws in conflict with those of other jurisdictions.

However, the Second Circuit observed that declining jurisdiction over all "foreign cubed" cases "would conflict with the goal of preventing the export of fraud from America." In particular, the Court was concerned that the U.S. should not be seen as a "safe haven for cheaters." The court said that "we are leery of a rigid bright line rule because we cannot anticipate all the circumstances in which the ingenuity of those inclined to violate the securities laws should result on their being subject to American jurisdiction."

Having rejected the bright line test, the Court went on to observe that "we are an American court, not the world’s court, and we cannot and should not expend our resources resolving cases that do not affect Americans or involve fraud emanating from America." The Second Circuit said that "in our view the ‘conduct text’ balances those competing concerns." Under the conduct test, subject matter jurisdiction exists "if activities in this country were more than merely preparatory to a fraud and culpable acts or omissions occurring here directly caused the losses abroad."

The Court then turned to applying the conduct test to the NAB case. The claimants urged that because miscalculation of HomeSide’s mortgage servicing rights had taken place in this country, U.S. courts could exercise jurisdiction. The Second Circuit nevertheless determined that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction, citing three factors: "the fraudulent statements at issue emanated from NAB’s headquarters in Australia; the complete lack of any effect on America or Americans; and the lengthy chain of causation between HomeSide’s actions and the statements that reached investors."

Discussion

Though the defendants in the NAB case prevailed, the case hardly means the end of f-cubed litigation. Arguably, in light of the Second Circuit’s refusal to adopt a bright line test, the jurisdictional standards remain largely unchanged, and litigants will continue to argue whether there is sufficient U.S. based conduct and U.S based effects to support the U.S. court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

Moreover, the Second Circuit made it clear that there will be circumstances in which it will be entirely appropriate for U.S. courts to exercise jurisdiction over the f-cubed claims. For that reason, and even though the Second Circuit held that the U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction of over the NAB case itself, foreign claimants likely will continue to try to assert claims against foreign-domiciled companies in U.S. courts.

That said, the claimants case against NAB did get tossed. The Second Circuit did caution against U.S. courts presuming to act as "the world’s court" and also cautioned against the exercise of jurisdiction over claims that do not affect Americans or involve fraud emanating from America. In other words, not all foreign claimants’ claims against foreign domiciled companies will go forward in U.S. courts.

Moreover, these issues are relevant not only at the motion to dismiss stage but also at the other procedural stages, including the lead plaintiff stage (refer here). As Adam Savett noted on the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here), courts have been increasingly willing to craft class certification to exclude foreign domiciled claimants at least in certain circumstances.

All of that said, the NAB decision will be grist for the mill in the onslaught of litigation involving foreign domiciled companies sued in connection with the current subprime and credit crisis litigation wave. The NAB decision necessarily implies a case-by-case determination and so litigants will continue to wrestle to determine whether these cases will go forward in U.S. courts. In the meantime, the cases will continue to be filed.

An October 23, 2008 Bloomberg article discussing the case can be found here.

Special thanks to George T. Conway, III of the Wachtell, Lipton law firm, who successfully represented NAB in the Second Circuit, for providing me with a copy of the opinion.

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

The calamity that began as a U.S.-based subprime mortgage meltdown has now grown into a global financial crisis that has resulted in bankruptcies and bailouts involving some of the world’s largest financial institutions. Along the way, these financial institutions’ investors have seen their investment interests damaged or destroyed, leaving many angry and aggrieved. If a new lawsuit is any indication, investors aggrieved by their lost investments in global financial institutions may be turning to the U.S. courts for redress.

As reflected in their press release (here), on October 22, 2008, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a purported securities class action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased securities of the recently nationalized Belgium-based financial services company, Fortis N.V. , related entities, and certain of its directors and officers.

According to the press release, though the company portrayed itself as stable and largely immune to the turmoil that was sweeping financial markets, "the Company was practically insolvent at all relevant times and needed to sell assets at fire-sale prices and raise capital at extraordinarily high rates to remain viable."

The press release states that the company’s balance sheet was impaired by assets acquired in connection with the company’s October 2007 acquisition of ABN AMRO.

On September 29, 2008, the governments of Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg agreed to bailout the company, but only if it were to sell its troubled stake in ABN AMRO. A September 30, 2008 Wall Street Journal article about the action of the three governments, and the role of the ABN AMRO transaction, can be found here. Even though the deal was in the form of an emergency infusion of 11.2 billion Euros ($16.9 billion), it was "not enough to stem Fortis’ continued decline."

On October 4, 2008, the Dutch government took over the company’s operations for 16.8 billion Euros ($23 billion). As the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ press release puts it, "news that the famed financial giant was in ruins and required nationalization further punished Fortis’ already bruised stakeholders." An October 6, 2008 Wall Street Journal article describing the government takeover, including the sale of Fortis banking and insurance assets to BNP Paribas, can be found here.

The plainitffs' lawyers' press release adds:

On October 14, 2008, Fortis traded on the Brussels exchange at the lowest levels that it had ever seen since it was formed 18 years ago, after selling most of its operations to three governments and BNP Paribas SA. Fortis, which resumed trading after a six-day suspension, declined 78 percent to 1.22 euro, valuing the Company at 2.86 billion euros ($3.91 billion).

The complaint in this case, which can be found here, apparently purports to be filed on behalf of  ALL investors who bought Fortis shares between January 28, 2008 and October 6, 2008, and not just U.S. domiciled investors or those who bought their shares on exchanges in the U.S. (where Fortis shares trade over the counter). The complaint specifically alleges that Fortis shares trade on the Brussels, Euronext and Luxembourg stock exchanges, as well as in the U.S.

To the extent the class action purports to be filed on behalf of foreign-domiciled investors who bought their shares in Belgium-domiciled Fortis on foreign exchanges, the case appears to present a classic instance of the so-called "f-cubed" problem (the reference is to the three foreign connections – foreign corporate domicile, foreign investor domicile, and foreign exchange location).

This case does not present the extreme situation represented in the lawsuit filed against EADS (and about which I wrote here) in which the foreign company's shares did not trade in the U.S. at all, but it nevertheless does present all the jurisdictional problems associated with subjecting foreign domiciled companies to potential liability under U.S. securities laws. As I noted here in connection with the recent ruling in the AstraZeneca case, courts increasingly are showing reluctance to project U.S securities liability in connection with f-cubed claims.

There is of course a well-established pattern of foreign domiciled companies becoming involved in U.S. securities litigation. Indeed, just in connection with the current subprime and credit crisis-related litigation wave, there have been U.S. securities lawsuits that have been filed against, Société Générale, Swiss Re, Deutsche Bank, and UBS, among many others.

What sets this most recent lawsuit against Fortis apart from these prior cases, at least in my mind, is that it relates so directly to the dramatic actions of foreign governments to try to salvage the company. These circumstances involve a magnitude, a depth of clearly foreign involvement and interests, and a combination of purely global financial circumstances that could be far beyond the purview of a U.S based court. To be sure, there may well have been misrepresentations made in connection with these events (the complaint certainly makes numerous allegations to that effect), and there may well of course have been misrepresentations of a kind for which the U.S. laws are designed to provide provide relief, which of course will have to be determined at a later date.

The case also involves such a vivid example of the momentous events that have moved across the global financial stage in recent weeks. The litigants will of course present their arguments about whether and to what extent a U.S. court is the appropriate forum here. Those of us not directly involved in the case may ask whether U.S. courts appropriately should perform roving inquests on the bailouts and bankruptcies that emerge around the globe as a result of the current financial crisis.

In any event, the Fortis lawsuit may represent another example of the new wave of credit crisis-related litigation, where the connection to the subprime meltdown is indirect, and the events that triggered the lawsuit are related to the catastrophic events in the financial market place that began to unfold in September 2008. My most recent prior post on this new litigation wave can be found here. On the other hand, it may also be argued that the problems Fortis faced are simply the result of the subprime mortgage exposure and subprime-related investments of the company it acquired, much the same as, for example, Wachovia was exposed to the subprime-related problems from Golden West, which Wachovia acquired.

Here Be Dragons: The ill-fated ABN AMRO transaction is a veritable treasure trove of excesses, extremes and subsequent moral lessons. Undoubtedly a book will be written some day about how the investor consortium led by Royal Bank of Scotland, and including Fortis, outbid (to the consortium’s eternal regret) the prior ABN AMRO bid of Barclays. Until the book comes out, readers may want to refer to the highly abridged version of events on Wikipedia, here.

Were there not so many other current events, the financial pages undoubtedly would be full of what-went-wrong retrospectives on the ABN AMRO deal. It is one more of those amazing things about the current circumstances that, despite the size of the ABN AMRO calamity, it is effectively just background noise in the larger cataclysm.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parties in the SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG class action securities litigation seem to have devised a “global” settlement strategy to resolve the problems arising from the cross-border distribution of would-be class members.

First, some background. The lawsuit relates to alleged misrepresentations and omissions purportedly made by SCOR Holding’s predecessor in interest, Converium. Converium was domiciled outside the U.S .Its shares traded on the Swiss stock exchange, and its American Depositary Shares (ADS) traded on the NYSE.

In a March 6, 2008 order (here) in the SCOR Holding securities lawsuit, Judge Denise Cote had partially granted and partially denied the motion for class certification, as a result of which she certified a class consisting of U.S residents who had purchased Converium shares on the Swiss exchange, and any person who purchased Converium ADS’s on the NYSE. Excluded from the class were Non-U.S. residents who purchased Converium shares on the Swiss exchange.

The persons excluded from the class represent so-called “f-cubed” litigants – that is foreign shareholders of a foreign-domiciled company bought their shares on foreign exchanges. As I have discussed in prior posts (most recently here), courts have struggled with their response to the presence of  “f-cubed” litigants, which can involve complicated issues at the lead plaintiff stage (refer here) and at the motion to dismiss stage (refer here), as well as at the class certification stage, as the SCOR Holding case demonstrates.

But as Adam Savett noted here in a post on his Securities Litigation Watch blog (here) discussing the SCOR Holding class certification decision, the exclusion of the “f-cubed litigants” does raise the problem of how those erstwhile class members can seek compensation for their alleged injuries. As Savett discussed in a prior post on his blog (here), one possibility is that the excluded class members might launch a host of individual lawsuits, as Savett shows to be what happened in the Vivendi case.

The litigants in the SCOR Holdings case seem to have adopted a two-pronged approach to try to head the castoff foreign litigant problem off at the pass, in a settlement that might truly be described as “global.” At least, that certainly appears to the parties’ intent.

As discussed in a May 7, 2008 press release from the SCOR parent company (here), the SCOR Holding securities litigation has been settled through a two-part process. As stated in the press release, “SCOR reached an agreement to settle the claims of the certified class before the US court and the claims of non-US purchasers of Converium securities in a proceeding in the Netherlands for an aggregate amount of EUR 74 million (pre tax and before D&O recoveries).” A May 7, 2008 Business Insurance article describing the settlement can be found here. (74 mm euros is roughly $114.5 mm).

The description of the two-part settlement does not explain what portion of the aggregate total of 74 mm euros was allocable to which portion of the two separate proceedings. Nor does the press release elaborate on the Netherlands proceeding. Presumably the proceeding is similar to that employed in the much-discussed Royal Dutch Shell settlement. For detailed background on the $352.6 mm Royal Dutch Shell settlement, refer to the With Vigour and Zeal blog here and here.

The SCOR Holding litigants certainly deserve points for a creative way of avoiding the problems that arose in the Vivendi litigation with the proliferation of individual actions. They also seem to have come up with an alternative way of addressing the concerns of excluded class members desirous of obtaining relief of the kind available to U.S. resident investors.

The parties’ resort to the Netherlands proceeding does raise a number of interesting questions. One of these questions first arose at the time of the Royal Dutch Shell settlement, which is whether other litigants might try to avail themselves of the Netherlands procedures. The SCOR Holding settlement suggests that the answer is yes, and that the Netherlands procedures potentially could become an avenue for non-U.S. litigants to seek redress. Whether these procedures would be utilized without a prior U.S. based lawsuit still remains to be seen.

Another question is whether other litigants will seek to use the Netherlands procedures as part of a similar two-pronged strategy to try to achieve a settlement that resolves both U.S. and Non-U.S. investors’ claims. The extent to which the SCOR Holding settlement truly is successful in effecting a “global” settlement will clearly have some impact on whether other litigants might try to same approach. The limited information available at this point does not reveal on whose behalf the Netherlands procedure was going forward and how comprehensive the Netherlands settlement will be towards resolving all of the non-U.S. investors’ claims. To the extent the SCOR Holdings litigants’ two-pronged settlement achieves global peace, the settlement could well attract the interest and attention of litigants in other proceedings that also involve non-U.S. investors.

One final attraction of the approach employed in the SCOR Holdings settlement (and I suspect this attraction had something to do with how the approach came about) is that the two-pronged settlement enabled the plaintiffs’ counsel to corral together a larger group of aggrieved investors, which clearly would have some appeal to plaintiffs’ counsel who would not wish to litigants’ interests excluded or straying away into unrelated processes that would diminish the aggregate size of the investor interests on whose behalf the counsel can try to negotiate an aggregate settlement.

Auction Rate Securities Overview: Readers interested in a thorough background regarding auction rate securities and the events that triggered the current round of auction rate securities litigation will want to review the May 6, 2008 publication by NERA Economic Consulting entitled “Auction- Rate Securities: Bidder’s Remorse?”

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