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

Over the years, legislative reforms of the U.S. securities laws have cycled back and forth, between initiatives, on the one hand, to discourage abusive litigation and, on the other hand, to restrain corporate misconduct. In the current Wall Street bailout, post-Madoff environment, sentiment may be running high for legislative reforms that could expand liabilities under the federal securities laws. But though the time for reform may be now, the window of opportunity may be short.

According to a January 2010 Wall Street Lawyer article by Boris Feldman of the Wilson Sonsini firm entitled "The Coming Counter-Reformation in Securities Litigation" (here), the best shot for reforms favorable to the plaintiffs’ bar "may be right now—before the mid-term elections in 2010 can create a filibuster firewall in the Senate." In his article, Feldman looks at the most likely areas of reform and the likelihood of the initiatives’ success.

The "most important priority for the plaintiffs’ bar" will be the institution of private securities liability for aiding and abetting violations of the securities laws. (There are in fact already current Congressional initiatives to accomplish that very change, about where refer here and here.) This change, were it enacted, would made the biggest difference in the "big frauds," where the "primary wrongdoer is usually bust." If the company’s professionals were "on the hook," then the "entire calculus would change," as the "pot" would then "consist of more than a claim in bankruptcy and some D&O insurance policies."

The "real battle" about prospective aiding and abetting liability, according to Feldman, will be how -- not whether-- it is instituted. Questions such as who bears the burdens of proof and persuasion and the state of mind required for liability "will determine whether aiding and abetting liability is a measured response to the current situation or a license to subject outside advisors to in terrorem risk."

The next likely target for the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Feldman suggests, is the discovery stay, which has been one of the PSLRA’s "great frustrations" for the plaintiffs’ bar. Feldman suggests that the plaintiffs’ will seek to modify the discovery stay, rather than try to have it overturned. He suggests that one alternative might be a "good cause" exception to the stay. Another alternative is the creation of an exception to the stay for documents already produced to governmental authorities.

Feldman also suggest that the plaintiffs’ bar may attack the PSRLA’s pleading requirements, or alternatively seek to rely on initiatives to set aside the "facial plausibility" pleading standard of Twombley and Iqbal (about which refer here).

Finally, Feldman suggests that the plaintiffs’ bar may see to limit the impact of Dura Pharmaceuticals, perhaps through reforms specifying that the loss causation issue is to be addressed only at the summary judgment or trial stage.

One area Feldman suggests that plaintiffs are unlikely to seek reforms is with respect to the PSLRA’s lead plaintiff requirements. Though these provisions were controversial when first enacted, the plaintiffs’ bar has now "adapted happily" to the requirements, and with institutional investor relationships firmly in place, there is "no incentive for the plaintiffs’ bar to tinker with these provisions."

Feldman closes by noting that the "electoral clock is ticking," with the likelihood of legislative action, if any, before fall 2010. He confesses "surprise" that the legislative reforms were not launched a year ago, when the 2008 electoral results were still fresh. Feldman notes that the fact that the plaintiffs’ bar missed this opportunity "may have something to do with absences in their leadership ranks in recent years."

Feldman suggests that the "most likely" way these reforms may come about is through the activities of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which, Feldman notes, has "strong ties to the plaintiffs’ bar" (about which refer here), a fact that may allow the plaintiffs’ bar "to try to get some of their reforms into the recommendations of the Commission."

I note that Feldman published his article before last week’s special election in Massachusetts. The election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate seat vacated by the late Edward Kennedy seems to have scrambled everything. Although I don’t profess to have any particular insight into Congressional dynamics, I wonder whether the possible November effect Feldman anticipates in his memo has now been pushed forward through the calendar. The "filibuster firewall" may already be gone. Without a doubt, every member of Congress facing election this fall is proceeding with significantly greater wariness in the wake of the recent Massachusetts senatorial election. All of which makes me wonder whether or not the window of opportunity on some of these legislative proposals may have been substantially narrowed, if not altogether closed.

Opt-Outs Down and Out: Much has been written (refer for example here) about the growing phenomenon of class action securities lawsuit settlement opt-outs – that is, the investor class members who choose not to participate in the class action lawsuit settlement and instead pursue their own individual claims. One of the recurring themes has been how much better the opt-outs do than they would have if they remained in the class.

However, as shown in the outcome of a recent case involving Aspen Technology, there is no guarantee that the opt outs will do better by proceeding separately.

Aspen and several of its directors and officers had been sued in a securities class action lawsuit in November 2004 (about which refer here). The securities class action lawsuit ultimately settled for $5.6 million, but several class members representing 1.4 million shares of common stock opted out of the class action settlement and filed their own "direct action" lawsuit against the defendants in Massachusetts state court.

As reported on the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here), the Aspen Technology investors’ direct action lawsuit didn’t go so well for them. In a January 13, 2010 opinion (here), Massachusetts (Suffolk County) Superior Court Justice Judith Fabricant ruled that "no fraud occurred" and that "defendants are entitled to judgment on all counts of the complaint." In a memo about the decision (here), Skadden, the defense firm in the case, reports that Justice Fabricant also awarded defendants recovery from the plaintiffs of their costs in the case.

Options Backdating Securities Suit Dismissal Affirmed: One of the 39 options backdating related securities class action lawsuits involved claims against Jabil Circuit. The case may have been among the more noteworthy options backdating-related securities lawsuit filings, because Jabil Circuit was among the small group of companies specifically mentioned by name in the original March 2006 Wall Street Journal article ("The Perfect Payday") that launched the options backdating scandal. Among other things, the article calculated the likelihood that the Jabil options grants occurred randomly as "one in a million."

As noted in an earlier post (here), the Jabil Circuit options backdating-related securities lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice in April 2008. In a January 2009 order (here) on the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

In a January 19, 2010 decision (here), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, holding the plaintiffs’ allegations "fail to meet the heightened pleading standards" under the PSLRA.

Among other things, the court said that "the allegations of misrepresentations, responsibility for granting misdated options, and personal profiteering fail to raise a strong enough inference of scienter" and that "the allegations contained in the complaint do not create an inference of scienter that is at least as probable as a non-fraudulent explanation—namely that none of the Appellees knew of the accounting errors until the investigation began in 2006"

I have updated my table of the outcomes in the Options Backdating-related lawsuits to reflect the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Jabil Circuit. The table can be accessed here.

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

In an earlier post (here), I discussed legislation that Senator Arlen Specter introduced in July 2009 to legislatively overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Stoneridge and allow private actions for aiding and abetting liability. Though this proposed legislation is a matter for serious concern, there was always the possibility that given everything that Congress has on its plate, this particular initiative might not make the cut.

There is, however, some significant likelihood that some form of financial reform legislation eventually will be enacted into law. Indeed, as discussed here, the House of Representatives has already passed its version of financial reform legislation.

The Senate has yet to act, but among the leading proposed Senate financial reform bills under consideration is Senator Chris Dodd’s proposed "Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2009" (here).

As noted in a January 4, 2009 memo by K. Stewart Evans, Jr. of the Pepper Hamilton law firm (here), the bill contains a provision "hidden on page 795 of 1,136" that amends the ’34 Act to provide liability for any person that "knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance" to a person whose conduct violates the securities laws. Evans notes further that the provision would impose liability without the claimant having to even prove that reliance on the secondary actors’ statements.

My concerns about the possible imposition of aiding and abetting liability are reflected in my prior post. Evans has his own concerns, arguing that the proposed amendment would be "dangerous and destructive to American business."

But regardless of the merits of the proposal, the fact that it proposed amendment creating private aiding and abetting liability is no longer just its own free-floating suggestion, but has now been incorporated into a comprehensive piece of financial reform legislation does seem to suggest that the proposal could be that much closer to being enacted into law.

Of course, there is still a long way to go before we know whether or not the Senate will get around to enacting any financial reform legislation, much less what form that legislation might ultimately take. In addition, any bill passed by the Senate would have to be reconciled with the House’s bill, so what might finally emerge is at the point anybody’s guess.

But all of that said, the incorporation of the aiding and abetting provision into Dodd’s proposed Senate bill does seem to suggest the possibility that the aiding and abetting initiative will not simply fall by the wayside as the proposed legislation goes forward. Rather, at this point it looks like somebody is going to have to affirmatively knock the proposal out to prevent it from remaining in.

Dismissal of BAE Bribery Civil Suit Affirmed: As I have noted in prior posts (most recently here), allegations of bribery in connection with BAE’s fighter aircraft contract with Saudi Arabia – and in particular the UK’s election not to investigate the allegations due to national security concerns -- not only have proven highly controversial, but also has generated follow on civil litigation.

As discussed in a recent post on the FCPA Blog (here), on December 29, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the derivative lawsuit that had been filed against BAE, as nominal defendant, and certain of its directors and offices Judge Edwards, writing for the court found that under the 1843 English case of Foss v. Harbottle, 2 Hare 461, 67 E.R. 189, "the company, not a shareholder, is the proper plaintiff in a suit seeking redress for wrongs allegedly committed against the company."  The court further found that the BAE case did not come within any exceptions to the rule.

And Speaking of U.S. Lawsuits Against Foreign Companies: According to a January 6, 2010 Law.com article by Andrew Longstreth (here), the three-month long securities class action jury trial against Vivendi and certain of its directors and officers is drawing to a close. According to the article, the parties are now completing their closing statements, and the case will be submitted to the jury later this week.

Look for A Lot More Cases Like This in 2010: Though thecomplaint was actually filed in the Northern District of Georgia on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs’ lawyer press release is dated January 4, 2010, and the investor lawsuit involving a failed bank make prefigure many more lawsuits of the same kind in the months ahead in 2010.

The lawsuit arises out of the failure of Haven Trust Bancorp, whose operating banking subsidiary was taken over by the FDIC on December 12, 2008. On February 23, 2009, the holding company filed for bankruptcy. The defendants include certain former officers of the holding company and the bank. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants misrepresented the bank’s financial condition and lending practices in order to induce the plaintiff investors to invest in the holding company. The plaintiffs assert claims under the federal securities laws, Georgia securities laws, as well as certain common law claims.

 In light of the 140 banks that failed during 2009, there undoubtedly will be more claims like this to come, both filed on behalf of investors and on behalf of the FDIC as receiver of the failed institutions.

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

On December 11, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives approved by a 223-202 vote "The Wall Street Report and Consumer Protection Act of 2009," H.R. 4173 (here). The sprawling 1279-page Bill, which must be reconciled with competing financial reform legislation pending in the Senate, would institute a number of reforms and initiatives that would have a dramatic effect on the financial services industry.

In addition to the many higher profile institutional reforms, the Bill also incorporates a number of revisions and amendments that could significantly impact both SEC enforcement actions and private securities litigation.

The House Financial Services Committee’s two-page summary of the Bill can be found here. The Committee’s three page list of the Bill’s "highlights" can be found here.

The Bill’s high profile reforms include, among other things, the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency; the creation of a Financial Stability Council to identify large, interconnected firms that could put the financial system at risk; the creation of a single federal banking regulator; and the introduction of various regulatory reforms regarding financial derivatives and credit default swaps. The Bill also required hedge funds and private equity funds to register with the SEC.

As reflected on the RiskMetrics Corporate Governance Risk & Governance Blog (here), the House Bill also introduces a number of corporate governance reforms, including an annual "say on pay" mandate and authorization for the SEC to issue a proxy access rule. The bill includes a permanent exemption for small issuers (those with less than $75 million in market cap) from the outside auditor attestation requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

In addition to these higher profile initiatives, the House bill also incorporates variety of legislative revisions to the federal securities laws that could affect securities litigation. Some of these initiatives were the subject of separate legislative proposals that have now been incorporated into the larger financial reform legislation.

The House Bill’s provisions that potentially could impact securities litigation include the following:

1. Credit Rating Agencies (Section 6003): Clarifies the pleading standard applicable to private securities actions under the ’34 Act against "a nationally recognized statistical rating organization" by specifying that "it shall be sufficient for purposes of pleading any required state of mind for purposes of such action that the complaint shall state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the nationally recognized statistical rating organization knowingly or recklessly violated the securities laws."

The Section also specifies that NRSRO’s credit rating opinions "shall not be deemed forward looking statements."

2. Mandatory Arbitration (Section 7201): Gives the SEC authority to "prohibit, or impose conditions or limitations on the use of, agreements that require customers or clients of any broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer to arbitrate any future dispute between them arising under the Federal securities laws."

3. Whistleblower Incentives and Protection (Section 7203): Gives the SEC authority to "pay an award or awards not exceeding an amount equal to 30 percent, in total, of the monetary sanctions imposed in the action or related actions to one or more whistleblowers who voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the action."

4. Aiding and Abetting Liability (Section 7207): Amends the ’33 Act and the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide that for purposes of an action brought by the SEC, "any person that knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance to another person in violation of a provision of this Act, or of any rule or regulation issued under this Act, shall be deemed to be in violation of such provision to the same extent as the person to whom such assistance is provided."

Section 7215 also clarifies that recklessness is a sufficient basis on which to impose aiding and abetting liability under the ’34 Act

5. Extraterritorial Application of the Federal Securities Laws (Section 7216): Amends the ’33 Act, the ’34 Act and the Investment Advisors Act of 1934 to clarify that federal court jurisdiction for securities cases includes cases that involves "conduct within the United States that constitutes significant steps in furtherance of the violation, even if the securities transaction occurs outside the United States and involves only foreign investors" or "conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States."

6. Deadlines for Enforcement Investigations and Compliance Examinations (Section 7209): Introduces, subject to certain specified exemptions, certain time requirements within which the SEC must complete enforcement investigations and compliance examinations. Among other things, the Section provides that, other than with respect to certain "complex action," within 180 days after serving someone with a Wells Notice, the SEC must either initiate an action against the person or provide notice that it does not intend to file an action.

The House Bill also dramatically increases SEC funding, doubling the agency’s budget in five years. The Bill also expands the agency’s subpoena powers and its ability to share and access information gathered by other regulatory and investigative bodies and agencies.

Readers of this blog will also be interested to know that Section 8802 of House Bill also creates a Federal Insurance Office within the Treasury Department. The new Federal Insurance Office would not replace state regulation of insurance. Rather, the new agency would monitor the insurance industry; designate insurers for stricter oversight; assist in the administration of TRIA; coordinate on international insurance regulation; and consult with states on insurance matters of national importance.

It remains to be seen whether any of these provisions will survive the forthcoming legislative process and actually become law. The Wall Street Journal’s front page article about the House Bill (here) indicates that Democratic leadership in the Senate has committed to having a reconciled agreement in principle about the financial reform legislation by the end of December, to have a bill enacted in the first half of 2010.

While the legislation that finally emerges will undoubtedly reflect further changes, it is interesting to observe even at this preliminary stage how some of the proposed initiatives have fared.

For example, though it contains provisions addressing the SEC’s authority to enforce aiding and abetting liability under the ’33 Act and under the Investment Advisors Act, the House Bill, at least, does not contain any provisions along the lines of those proposed last summer by Senator Arlen Specter to overturn Stoneridge. Nor does the House Bill contain any provisions reflecting Senator Specter’s initiative to overturn Iqbal. Of course, because those initiatives originated on the Senate side, they may still be incorporated into the Senate version of the financial reform bill and perhaps even in the final version of the reform legislation that ultimately emerges.

As noted above, the House Bill does incorporate suggested provisions that would clarify federal court jurisdiction in matters involving companies or persons outside the U.S. These provisions mirror the proposed legislation that Representative Paul Kanjorski introduced earlier this fall (as discussed in a prior post, here.) This jurisdictional provision, if enacted, could make the National Australia Bank case, on which the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted a petition for writ of certiorari, of considerably less potential significance, as jurisdictional issues raised in the case would be controlled in future by the new statutory provisions.

Given the current political climate, it seems probable that some form of financial reform legislation will be enacted prior to the 2010 congressional election. The ultimate version may be far different that the Bill approved by the House on Friday. However, if the House Bill is any indication of what might finally emerge, there could be some enormous changes ahead, including among other things significant changes relating to securities litigation and enforcement.

Random Thought: Is there anything more unintentionally ironic and completely self-negating than the phrase "This Page Intentionally Left Blank"? (This Internet being what it is, there is actually a website devoted to the phrase, here.)

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

In January 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Stoneridge case followed its prior decision in Central Bank of Denver and held that there is no private right of action for "scheme liability" or aiding and abetting under the federal securities laws, ruling that Congress had reserved to the SEC the right to enforce aiding and abetting liability.

But what Congress has decreed, Congress can also change, and change is what Senator Arlen Specter proposed on July 30, 2009 when he introduced Senate Bill 1551, "The Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009." If enacted, the bill would, in effect, legislatively overturn Stoneridge by amending the securities laws to allow private litigation against a person that provides "substantial assistance" in a violation of the securities laws.

On September 17, 2009, the bill had its first committee hearing at a session of the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. A link to the Subcommittee proceedings site for the session, including links to the written witness testimony, can be found here. A September 18, 2009 memorandum (here) by Leslie Platt and Kimberly Melvin of the Wiley Rein law firm provides an excellent and detailed summary of the Subcommittee’s proceedings. (Thanks to Kim Melvin for providing a copy of the memorandum.)

Of particular interest among the witnesses’ written statements is the testimony of University of Michigan Law Professor Adam Pritchard opposing the bill (here), and the testimony of Columbia Law Professor John Coffee supporting the bill (here), subject to certain suggested amendments.

Professor Coffee suggests that "it is anomalous that one could be criminally liable of aiding and abetting by not civilly liable for the same conduct in a private suit." He also argues that allowing private suits for aiding and abetting would be "the most realistic means to prevent misconduct," because it would "deter those who have less to gain" from fraudulent misconduct, who also have "the ability to block the transaction."

Professor Pritchard by contrast argues that the bill would "tear down the safeguards" instituted in Central Bank and Stoneridge, "creating the potential for the securities laws to be injected in a wide range of ordinary commercial transactions." Enacting the bill would also, Professor Pritchard contends "undermine the United States’s international competitiveness and raise the cost of capital." The goal of the bill, he contends, is simply "to rope in more ‘deep pocket’ defendants to feed the plaintiff’s bar’s lucrative class action machine." The written testimony of Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., a partner at the Sullivan Cromwell law firm, is very much in the same vein as Pritchard’s.

In the Wiley Rein memo linked above, the authors advise that the bill will next likely be marked up for presentation to the full Senate. The current legislative calendar is remarkably full, and therefore the bill may not be considered before the end of 2009 – but, the authors note, "the 111^th Congress does not end until 2010." The bill could also be "incorporated into a larger finance, banking or securities-related bill."

Could the Bill Pass?

Two years ago, a bill of this type would have stood little chance. The dynamic at the time was against further regulatory constraints and in favor of markets and the kind of "light touch" prevailing in the U.K. But the events of the past two years, both political and economic, have changed all that and the changed circumstances may substantially increase the likelihood of the bill’s passage. The sweeping Democratic victory in the 2008 elections and current popular need to assign blame for the global economic crisis will likely increase the collective willingness of Congress to remove barriers to the imposition of liability.

But separate and apart from these considerations that might suggest a Congressional inclination in favor of the bill, there are a variety of other factors that might further increase the possibility that the bill could pass.

First, the courts have presented Congress with an engraved invitation to implement these changes. The most prominent example of this is the March 17, 2009 opinion (here) by then-Southern District of New York Judge Gerald Lynch in the Refco case. (On September 17, 2009, the Senate confirmed Judge Lynch’s nomination to the Second Circuit.) In the opinion, Judge Lynch dismissed the securities claims filed against a lawyer that had advised the client later criminally convicted of securities fraud.

Judge Lynch commented that "it is perhaps dismaying that participants in a fraudulent scheme who may even have committed criminal acts are not answerable to the victims of the fraud." Judge Lynch stated that the Congressional decision to leave the enforcement of aiding and abetting liability solely to the SEC "may be ripe for re-examination." He noted that "while the impulse to protect professionals and other marginal actors who may too easily be drawn into securities litigation may well be sound, a bright line between principles and accomplices may not be approximate."

The sentiment expressed in the opinion of a judge as respected as Judge Lynch could provide intellectual cover, and perhaps even policy justification, for Congress to take steps to which it is likely already inclined.

Second, as a result of its fumbled opportunities to investigate Bernard Madoff and other developments, the SEC’s regulatory credentials are held in particularly low regard right now, which underscores the concern with leaving aiding and abetting enforcement exclusively with the SEC.

As Professor Coffee noted in his written testimony, "does anyone really believe today, in this post-Madoff world, that the SEC, by itself, can adequately deter most secondary participants in securities frauds?" He added that the SEC is "cost constrained, has limited personnel and a large backload of cases," noting that the SEC "sometimes missed for years frauds (such as Madoff and Stanford Ponzi schemes) that others had begun to suspect."

Third, in the wake of the global financial crisis, there is particularly strong public sentiment in favor of holding gatekeepers accountable. The gatekeepers most frequently cited are the rating agencies, but other gatekeeper scapegoats include auditors, lawyers and offering underwriters. Riding alongside this general public outrage is a parallel public perception that the SEC has so far at least has done relatively little in the wake of the subprime meltdown and global financial crisis to target and pursue wrongdoers, a perception that puts further stress on the SEC’s exclusive right to pursue aiding and abetting liability claims.

A final consideration that could increase the likelihood of the bill’s passage is a bill amendment Professor Coffee has proposed. He suggests placing a ceiling on liability for secondary defendants of $2 million for individuals and $50 million for corporations, subject to the further provision that the award should not in any event exceed the greater of ten percent of the defendant’s average income; net worth; or market capitalization. Professor Coffee’s proposed ceiling, if adopted, could further advance the likelihood of the bill’s passage.

What Happens if the Bill Passes?

Of course, it remains to be seen if the bill will in fact pass. Congress is extraordinarily preoccupied right now, and the bill’s opponents, who are legion, will be well-organized and active. The bill could yet wind up on the dust heap of failed legislative initiatives.

But what happens if it does pass? Well, at a minimum, the roster of defendants in securities class action lawsuits will be greatly expanded, and public companies’ outside professional advisors increasingly will find themselves named as co-defendants in securities suits along with their client companies. The likely costs of defense alone for these gatekeeper defendants will be enormous, which in turn will create significant pressure for these gatekeeper defendants to settle, at least for cases surviving initial dismissal motions. In short, if the bill passes, look for the cost of professional liability insurance to escalate. (Indeed, Coffee cited concerns about the availability of professional liability insurance as one reason to justify the adoption of a secondary liability ceiling.)

That said, plaintiffs seeking to pursue claims against the gatekeepers would still have to satisfy the PSLRA’s requirement that the complaint plead "with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the requisite state of mind." This hurdle is hard enough for plaintiffs to satisfy with respect to primary actors; it will be that much more challenging in connection with allegations against secondary actors. Moreover, the PSLRA’s proportionate liability provisions at least theoretically should reduce the liability that would be imposed on less culpable defendants.

But while the potential exposure the bill might pose for gatekeepers is an interesting question, it is not the only question the bill’s passage would present. The potential liability of other companies and their directors and officers for aiding and abetting claims is a related and equally serious question that the bill’s passage would present.

In that regard, it is important to keep in mind that aiding and abetting defendants in the Stoneridge case were not Charter Communications’ outside professionals. Rather, the defendants against whom the plaintiffs sought to impose secondary liability were Scientific Atlanta and Motorola, who were acting as customers and suppliers that allegedly facilitated a "round trip" revenue scheme so that Charter could hit its revenue targets.

My point here is that the potential defendants who could find themselves drawn into securities class action lawsuits on aiding and abetting claims if the bill passes will include not just gatekeepers but also other companies whose business transactions with the alleged primary violator are alleged to have aided and abetted the securities fraud.

In other words, were Senator Specter’s bill to pass, it would not only greatly expand the potential securities liability exposure for companies’ outside professionals. It would also expand the potential securities liability exposure of all companies that transact business with public companies.

At a minimum, this possibility has significant implications for D&O insurance coverage. In particular, the way in which the term "securities claim" is defined in the D&O insurance policy could become even more important than it is now. Currently, there are two variations in the way the term is defined. Under one formulation, the term is defined solely with reference to violations alleged in connection with the purchase or sale of the insured company’s own securities. In the other formulation, the term is defined with respect to any alleged violation of the securities laws. (To be sure, there are some definitions that incorporate both formulations.)

The first formulation potentially might be too narrow to encompass a claim that the insured company aided and abetted a securities law violation by another company. Clearly in anticipation of the possibility that the Specter bill might pass, it is critically important to carefully review the D&O policy’s definition of the term "securities claim" to ensure that it is sufficiently broad to encompass aiding and abetting claims.

A more challenging issue may arise with respect to private companies. There is nothing about the kind of vendor wrongdoing alleged in the Stoneridge case that would restrict the possibility of a claim on that basis solely to public companies. These kinds of allegations clearly could also be alleged against private companies as well. But private company D&O insurance policies usually contain some form of securities claim exclusion. These exclusions typically are tied to the public offering of the insured company’s own securities. But in light of the possibility of aiding and abetting claims even against private companies, these private company D&O insurance policy exclusions should be carefully scrutinized to determine how they might affect coverage under the policy in the event of an aiding and abetting claim against the insured private company.

A final note about the possibility of private litigant aiding and abetting claims is that, were the bill to be enacted, it could enormously complicate the jobs of professional liability insurance underwriters. The potential liability exposures of both outside professionals and of companies that do business with public companies will be expanded, in ways that traditional underwriting tools may be ill-suited to test and measure. It seems probable that underwriters may attempt to raise rates as the only instrument available to protect insurers from the possibility of expanded aiding and abetting liability exposure.

Special thanks to the several loyal readers who have sent me links regarding the Specter bill.

And While You're At It, Congress: Stoneridge is not the only Supreme Court decision that Senator Specter has targeted. In addition, on July 22, 2009, Senator Specter introduced Senate Bill 1504 , "Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009," the purpose of which is to legislatively overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in the Iqbal case. Iqbal, building on the Court’s previous holding in the Twombley case, held that in order to survive initial motions to dismiss, plaintiffs’ complaints must provide "facial plausibility" for the claims asserted.

Unlike his Stoneridge bill, Specter’s Iqbal bill has not yet made it to committee review. According to Tony Mauro’s September 21, 2009 Law.com article (here), civil rights and consumer groups and trial lawyers have been meeting and conferring on ways to advance the legislation or otherwise to try undo Iqbal. According to the article, Iqbal has already had a very significant impact – it has already "produced 1,500 district court and 100 appellate court decisions."

Whether or not these legislative efforts ultimately succeed, it is clear that the plaintiffs’ bar and their allies intend to try to circumvent the effects of a string of defense-friendly Supreme Court rulings. The current Congressional logjam will clearly be a factor in whether or not these bills even make it through the process. The more interesting question is whether the pendulum has swung enough as a result of the current economic crisis that these legislative initiatives will carry the day.

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