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

In a development that undoubtedly will attract comment and controversy, fourteen former Lehman Brothers executives – including former Lehman Chairman and CEO Dick Fuld (pictured) --have reached an agreement to settle the consolidated securities class action litigation that has been filed against them for $90 million. In a separate development, seventeen former Lehman executives have agreed to settle the separate lawsuit brought against them by the New Jersey Treasury Department Investment Division for $8.25 million.

The entire amount of both settlements is to be funded by D&O insurance. The settlements are subject to the consent of the bankruptcy court to lift the stay in bankruptcy to allow the D&O insurers to fund the settlement, as well as to the approval of the respective courts in which the respective settled actions are pending. The executives’ motion for relief from the bankruptcy stay in connection with the equity and debtholders’ action can be found here. The executives’ motion for relief from the bankruptcy stay in connection with the New Jersey action can be found here.

Peter Lattman’s August 25, 2011 article on August 25, 2011 article on The New York Times Dealbook blog  describing the motions and the settlements can be found here. Nate Raymond’s August 25, 2011 article on The Am Law Litigation Daily about the settlements can be found here.

Securities lawsuits had been filed against Lehman and certain of its directors and officers both before and after its dramatic collapse in September 2008. The cases ultimately were consolidated. On July 27, 2011, Judge Lewis Kaplan largely denied the motions to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit, as discussed here.

At the time the first of these actions was filed against Lehman in early 2008, Lehman carried an aggregate of $250 million in D&O insurance, consisting of a $20 million primary policy and sixteen layers of excess insurance. A copy of the Lehman primary policy, which is included in the bankruptcy pleadings, can be found here. Further discussion of the details of the Lehman D&O insurance program can be found here.

Following Lehman’s bankruptcy filing, and  as the securities cases and other litigated matters went forward, from time to time the parties would appear in bankruptcy court to seek relief from the stay to allow the D&O insurers to fund ongoing defense expenses. As I noted in a prior post (here) anallyzing one of the prior requests from the relief from the stay, the defense costs have been accumulating extraordinarily rapidly.

The executives’ motions for relief from the bankruptcy stay for purposes of these settlements show just how rapidly the defense expenses and other items have been eroding the limits. In their motion with respect the $90 million securities class action settlement, the executives explain that they are seeking relief from the stay with respect to the sixth through twelfth level excess insurers in Lehman’s insurance program.

Footnote 4 of the motion identifies the excess insurers involved (their policies are also attached to the motion) and also explains that the sixth level excess insurer provide coverage of $25 million in excess of $85 million, and the twelfth level excess insurer provides coverage of $20 million in excess of $180 million. (The equivalent motion with respect to the New Jersey action seeks relief with respect to the sixth and if necessary the seventh level excess insurers, so the $8.25 million New Jersey settlement is assumed to have already eroded the limit for purposes of calculating the limits available for the consolidated securities lawsuit settlement).

Taking all of this information into account, and assuming the various stays and approvals are granted, the settlements, together with prior defense expenses and other payments, will erode up to $200 million of the $250 million tower. The two settlements together total $98.25 million.

There is nothing in any of the settlement papers to suggest that the individual defendants will contribute to either of these settlements out of their own assets. The settlements do not include the other defendants in the cases; in the securities class action lawsuit, the remaining defendants include Lehman’s offering underwriters, as well as its auditor, E&Y.

Discussion

Not only was the Lehman bankruptcy the largest in U.S. history, but the company’s collapse very nearly triggered a global economic catastrophe. The circumstances of its collapse have been the subject of extensive investigation and commentary. The company’s accounting prior to its collapse has also been the subject of intense scrutiny, most notably in the report of the bankruptcy examiner, who, among other things, he called the company’s quarter-end Repo 105 transactions “balance sheet manipulations,” about which refer here. Dick Fuld has become something of a poster child (or at least one of the poster children) for problems on Wall Street that contributed to the economic crisis.

Given that context, the fact that the individual defendants apparently are not going to contribute to this settlement is likely to be controversial. Many commentators have already bewailed the fact that cases of this type are settled exclusively with D&O insurance, and without any personal contribution by the alleged wrongdoers. These kinds of concerns will be even more exacerbated here, given the high profile nature of this case and the vilification that has heaped on Fuld and other Lehman executives. 

I have no insight into why the settlements were structured the way they were. But I can speculate at least that a major factor driving the timing, size and structure of these settlements was the alarming erosion of the policy limits as defense expense reduced the amount of insurance available with which to try to settle these cases.

The problem the plaintiffs’ lawyers faced, which is the one that claimants always face in the insolvency context, is that the plaintiffs can always hang tough and hold out for the optimal settlement, but in the meantime the policy proceeds out of which any settlement would have to be funded are rapidly disappearing. These concerns were particularly abrupt here because of the astonishing speed at which the policy limits were disappearing. An added concern for the plaintiffs here is that if they held out too long, they ran the risk that the SEC might suddenly file an enforcement complaint against one or more Lehman executive, or the DoJ might file a criminal action. If either of those things were to have happened, the rapid depletion of policy limits would have leapt into hyperspeed.

So to those who say that the plaintiffs’ lawyer here should have demanded a settlement in which the individuals contributed out of their own assets, I say that while that type of settlement might theoretically have been more satisfying at some level, it might not have produced a better result for the class members and other aggrieved parties. Indeed, if the settlement talks had dragged on too much longer, there might soon have been no insurance left at all out of which to settle the case.

I am realistic enough to know that not everyone will find this appeal to practicality to be satisfying. There is a lot of emotion associated with the Lehman collapse, and there undoubtedly will be those who will be outraged that Fuld and others are “getting off” here without having to contribute out of their own assets. This notion precedes from a basic sentiment that these executives should be punished. From my perspective, it is the job of the SEC and the DoJ to determine who needs to be punished. If the SEC and the DoJ believe these individuals should be punished in some way, they will pursue the appropriate sort of action. The types of private civil actions that are under discussion here are meant to provide a way to compensate aggrieved parties. That is the purpose of these settlements. Whether or not they are the optimal settlements, they may have been the most economically beneficial and viable settlements available given the rapid depletion of the policy limits.

I have in any event added these settlements to my running tally of credit crisis related case resolutions, which can be accessed here.

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

In a detailed 106-page opinion dated July 27, 2011 (here), Southern District of New York Judge Lewis Kaplan granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss in the consolidated Lehman Brothers Securities Litigation. Though Judge Kaplan knocked out certain of the plaintiffs’ allegations, what Judge Kaplan called the “core” of plaintiffs’ allegations remain, particularly with respect the company’s quarter-end Repo 105 transactions.

As detailed here, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements about Lehman Brothers prior to the company’s September 2008 collapse. The defendants include certain former officers and directors of the company; the company’s auditor; and the company’s offering underwriter. The plaintiffs amended their consolidated complaint following the March 2010 release of the report of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy examiner (about which refer here), which, described the company’s alleged “balance sheet manipulation,” among other things by using a quarter end accounting device know as “Repo 105.” The defendants moved to dismiss.

In his July 27 opinion, Judge Kaplan granted the defendants motion to dismiss s to certain of the plaintiffs’ allegations, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged misleading falsity, for example, with respect to statements about the company’s use of risk mitigants and with respect to certain aspects of the company’s liquidity.

However, Judge Kaplan found that the allegations were sufficient with respect to a number of the plaintiffs’ other allegations, particularly with respect to the company’s use of the Repo 105 transactions; its statements about its net leverage; its statements about its use of stress testing; its statements about risk management; its statements about value at risk; and its statements about concentrations of credit risk.

With respect to the Repo 105 transactions, Judge Kaplan said that “repetitive, temporary, and undisclosed reduction of net leverage at the end of each quarter is sufficient to make out a claim.”

With respect to the statements that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged to be false and misleading, Judge Kaplan found that the plaintiffs had also sufficiently alleged scienter. In finding that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged scienter against the officer defendants in connection with the statements concerning the Repo 105 transactions, Judge Kaplan said:

The suggestions that defendants believed that the Repo 105 transactions were permissible in and of themselves and that the financial reporting for them, in and of itself, complied with GAAP does not address the core of plaintiffs’ claims  – that they were used to reduce temporarily and artificially Lehman’s net leverage and paint a misleading picture of the company’s financial position at the end of each quarter. The allegations of that these transactions were used at the end of each reporting period, in amounts that increased as the economic crisis intensified, to affect a financial metric that allegedly was material to investors, credit rating agencies, and analysts supports a strong inference that the Insider Defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that use of the Repo 105 transactions and the manner in which they were accounted for painted a misleading picture of the company’s finances.

Although Judge Kaplan also knocked out many of the allegations against E&Y, the company auditor, Judge Kaplan also found that the amended complaint “adequately alleges that D&Y misrepresented in the 2Q08 that it was ‘not aware of any material modification that should be made to the consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.’”

Judge Kaplan’s conclusions as to the sufficiency of the Exchange Act allegations against the individual defendants also extended to the sufficiency of the Securities Act allegations against the Underwriter Defendant.

As a result of Judge Kaplan’s rulings, one of the highest profile securities suits filed in the wake of the credit crisis will now go forward. Unsurprisingly, the allegations concerning the Repo 105 transaction had a significant impact on Judge Kaplan’s consideration of the plaintiffs’ claims. While any resolution of this case would be challenging, the difficulty for all concerned is that due to the multiplicity and complexity of the various legal matters arising out of the company’s collapse, the amount of D&O insurance remaining is rapidly declining. Even if the defendants feel strongly that they are wrongly accused, they will have to think hard about whether it is better to try to work a deal while insurance funds remain, or to fight on in the hope of ultimate vindication – preferably before the insurance funds are gone.

Nate Raymond’s July 27, 2011 Am Law Litigation Daily article discussing the decision can be found here.

I have in any event added the Lehman brothers ruling to my running tally of the subprime meltdown and credit crisis related dismissal motion rulings, which can be accessed here.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of Judge Kaplan’s ruling.

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal in CBRE Realty Subprime-Related Securities Suit: In another ruling in a subprime-related securities class action lawsuit, on July 26, 2011, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the subprime-related securities suit that had been filed against CBRE Realty Finance. The Second Circuit’s opinion can be found here.

As discussed here, the plaintiffs had alleged that in connection with company’s September 2006 IPO, the company’s offering documents had not adequately disclosed the risk of default in connection with two Maryland condominium conversion projects known as Triton. In July 2009, the District of Connecticut dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims because the loans were fully collateralized at the time of the IPO. The plaintiffs appealed.

In its July 26 opinion, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the district court, but on different grounds. The Second Circuit held that “the alleged misstatements were not material because the value of the transactions composed an immaterial portion of the issuer’s total assets.”

I have also added the Second Circuit’s opinion in the CBRE case to my table of credit crisis lawsuit dismissal motion rulings.

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

In a May 11, 2011 opinion (here), a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of rating agency defendants in litigation filed under the Securities Act of 1933 and involving mortgage-related securities issues by Lehman Brothers and IndyMac and the Residential Asset Securitization Trust (RUST). The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s rulings that the credit rating agencies could not be held liable under Section 11 of the ’33 Act as “underwriters” – even if they helped structure the securities at issue.

The plaintiffs were purchasers of mortgage backed securities. The plaintiffs generally alleged that the originators of the loans that backed the securities failed to comply with the general loan underwriting guidelines described in the offering documents. The plaintiffs allege that the rating agencies determined the composition of the loans in the mortgage pool that the instruments securitized. The plaintiffs also allege that the credit enhancements supporting the loans were insufficient to support the investment ratings the rating agencies gave the securities.

The plaintiffs premised their securities liability claims against the rating agencies based on their argument that the rating agencies were "underwriters" within the meaning of Section 11 of the ’33 Act. The plaintiffs based their theory that the rating agencies were "underwriters" on the argument that the "underwriter" liability extends to those "who engaged in steps necessary for the distribution." Plaintiffs argued that because the rating agencies structured the certificates at issue to achieve the desired ratings, that had performed a necessary predicated for the securities’ distribution in the market, and therefore they should be liable as underwriters.

In separate rulings on February 1 and February 17, 2010, Southern District of New York Lewis Kaplan granted the rating agency defendants’ motions to dismiss in the Lehman Brothers Mortgage Backed Securities lawsuit, as discussed here and here. Judge Kaplan relied on his ruling s in the Lehman Brothers case to granting the rating agency defendants’ dismissal motions in the IndyMac and RUST cases.  The plaintiffs’ appealed. Because the separate cases raised similar issues, the appeals were consolidated before the Second Circuit.

The Second Circuit affirmed Judge Kaplan’s ruling that the rating agencies cannot be held liable as “underwriters” under the ’33 Act. The Second Circuit said that:

The plain language of the statute limits liability to persons who participate in the purchase, offer, or sale of securities for distribution. While such participants may be indirect as well as direct, the statute does not reach further to identify as underwriters persons who provide services that facilitate a securities offering but who do not themselves participate in the statutorily specified distribution-related activities.

The Second Circuit also affirmed the lower court rulings that the Rating Agencies were not subject to “control person” liability under Section 15. Finally, the appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ leave to amend their pleadings.

The Second Circuit’s ruling not only is fatal for the claims of the plaintiffs in these cases with respect to the rating agencies, but also in the many other cases where other plaintiffs had raised similar claims. To be sure, these claims had not been faring particularly well in the district courts, as most other district courts were following Judge Kaplan’s district court ruling in the Lehman Brothers case. But now with the Second Circuit’s opinion these claims seem to have received what may be their final blow.

It is worth noting, however, that investors have filed lawsuits relating to subprime investments against the rating agencies on other theories. For example, in one case, discussed here, CalPERS had sued the rating agencies in connection with the agencies’ ratings on certain investment vehicles, asserting claims of negligence and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. In the Cheyne Financial case (discussed here), the plaintiff investors had asserted a variety of common law claims against the rating agencies, including common law fraud and misrepresentation. These claims based on other theories will not be affected by the Second Circuit’s ruling.

What remains to be seen is whether the subprime mortgage-backed securities investors will prevail against the rating agencies on any theory.

Nate Raymond’s May 11, 2011 Am Law Litigation Daily article about the Second Circuit’s decision can be found here.

Is It Really Time to Head Out?: I know things have been challenging for securities class action plaintiffs’ lawyers. A string of Supreme Court decisions has made it lot tougher for them to pursue their claims and the cumulative impact of various legislative reforms have made it more difficult for the plaintiffs’ claims to survive the preliminary motions. But has it gotten so bad that it is time to pull up stakes to try to pursue shareholder claims in another country? Apparently so, at least judging from the actions of Michael Spencer, a securities class action plaintiffs’ attorney for the Milberg firm in New York.

According to a May 10, 2011 article in The (Toronto) Globe and Mail entitled “Top U.S. Class Action Lawyer Coming to Canada” (here), Spencer, who was lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the Vivendi securities trial, has been completing all of the requirements for being admitted to the Ontario bar, with the goal of practicing law there. He apparently intends to set up his Canadian practice with the Toronto law firm of Kim Orr Barristers. P.C.

The article explains that Spencer’s move is due to the years of tightening down on securities class actions in the U.S. (particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank). By contrast, court’s applying Ontario’s securities laws have recently certified a global class (in the Imax case, for example). The article quotes Spencer as saying “Simply put, Canada presents a great opportunity.”

I have recognized that the cumulative impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions had made life tougher for the plaintiffs’ bar. But I had not thought that things had reached a point that litigation prospects looked more promising outside the United States. The fact that we have reached the point that litigation prospects look brighter in Canada than in the United States represents a watershed development of some kind. I wonder how the Canadians feel about that…

I note for the record the Spencer has been a guest blogger on this site; his guest post can be found here.

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

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s December 21, 2010 filing of a civil fraud lawsuit against Ernst & Young in connection with the audit firm’s services to Lehman Brothers has captured headlines in business pages around the world. The complaint itself, which can be found here, raises some serious allegations. But the complaint also raises a number of interesting questions, as discussed below. The NYAG’s December 21, 2010 press release about the lawsuit can be found here.

The Complaint

The 32-page complaint alleges that between 2001 and September 2008, E&Y "facilitated" Lehman Brothers’ "massive accounting fraud." The complaint alleges that during that period E&Y earned over $150 million in compensation from Lehman, which allegedly was one of E&Y’s largest clients.

The complaint alleges that Lehman manipulated its balance sheet through quarter-end sales of billions of dollars of fixed-income securities to European banks, with the express understanding that the Lehman would repurchase the securities days later. Lehman’s use of these transactions, know as Repo 105 transactions, allowed Lehman to mask its balance sheet leverage. The scale of these transactions grew as Lehman’s financial condition deteriorated in 2007 and 2008.

The complaint alleges that E&Y was aware of Lehman’s use of these transactions, yet approved Lehman’s use of financial statements that did not disclose the existence of the transactions or their effect on Lehman’s balance sheet. These actions, the complaint alleges, "directly facilitated a major accounting fraud, and helped mislead the public."

The complaint alleges that these actions by E&Y violated New York’s Martin Act. The complaint seeks to compel E&Y to repay the fees it earned from Lehman as well as investor damages.

Discussion

There are a number of very interesting things about the NYAG’s complaint against E&Y.

The first is that the only defendant in the lawsuit is E&Y itself. There are no other individuals or entities names as defendants.

On the one hand, it is hardly a surprise that a governmental authority has decided to pursue a regulatory claim against E&Y, in light of the March 2010 report by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas (about which refer here). In his report, Valukas had concluded "there are colorable claims" against E&Y for its "failure to question and challenge improper or inadequate disclosures." Given the bankruptcy examiner’s conclusions it seemed probable that there might eventually be some kind of regulatory action taken against E&Y.

On the other hand, the bankruptcy examiner’s report not only concluded that there are "colorable claims" against E&Y, but also concluded that there are "colorable claims" against the senior Lehman officials who "oversaw and certified the misleading financial statements," including Lehman’s CEO Richard Fuld and its CFOs, Christopher O’Meara, Erin Callan and Ian Lowitt. Moreover, the NYAG’s complaint expressly refers to other financial executives at Lehman who were involved in the company’s use of the Repo 105 transactions.

The NYAG’s complaint does not name any of these individuals as defendants. Indeed, one of the very curious aspects about the NYAG’s complaint is that it is virtually silent about the role or involvement of the most senior Lehman officials in the Repo 105 transaction; the individuals referred to by name in the complaint are by and large not the most senior executives.

And just as the complaint names no Lehman executives as defendants, the complaint also names no E&Y-related individuals as defendants. The sole defendant is E&Y itself, even though the individual E&Y audit partners responsible for Lehman’s audit and financial reporting are identified by name in the NYAG complaint. Yet it is the audit firm itself that is named as defendant, not the individuals.

The complaint’s firm-level focus is all the more interesting as allegations in the complaint do not seem to suggest that the decision to allow Lehman the accounting treatment it received was made at a firm-wide level or that anyone at E&Y other than the specific individual audit partners were aware of Lehman’s use and reporting of the Repo 105 transactions.

Setting aside the question of who been sued, there is also the question of the timing of the filing of this complaint. The complaint was filed by New York’s departing AG, Andrew Cuomo, who is just days away from taking up his duties as New York’s incoming Governor. Of course, it was his deputies and assistants who prepared and filed the complaint, but the timing of their actions means that this case will shortly become the responsibility of the incoming NYAG Eric Schneiderman.

Given that the incoming AG will be responsible for the case, it seems odd that he was not allowed control over its filing. On the other hand, under the heading of media relations, it may not be surprising that the outgoing AG wanted to make sure that everybody knew this complaint was filed on his watch.

Another question that combines these questions of targets and timing is the question of sequencing. The sequencing issue has two aspects – the first is why the NYAG has proceeded first against E&Y without at the same time or first going against any company officials. The second issue is the question of why the NYAG’s office is proceeding forward in advance of any action by the federal regulators.

The NYAG may be proceeding first against E&Y for tactical reasons, as a way to secure a settlement and/or the firm’s cooperation in connection with a later action against the corporate officials. Peter Lattman reported on December 20, 2010 on the Dealbook blog (here) that E&Y and the NYAG’s office have been in settlement negotiations. The complaint may simply represent negotiations in another form.

As for the NYAG’s moves ahead of the federal regulators, Lattman speculates that the action may in fact spur the SEC or the DoJ to act – which may or may not have been an intended consequence of the move.

But the most interesting question of all is – what will happen next? Will E&Y reach a settlement with the incoming NYAG? Will the NYAG file a separate action against senior Lehman officials? Will the SEC or the DoJ now take action, either against E&Y or former Lehman officials?

Whatever else might be said about the NYAG’s complaint, its very presence begs the question why there has yet been no federal regulatory action related to Lehman, a question further highlighted by the bankruptcy examiner’s report. My own view of the reason the federal regulators have not yet acted is that they know all too well that the Lehman collapse is the highest profile event related to the credit crisis.

Given that high profile, they know they can’t take any chance that their Lehman-related enforcement actions might fail. The unacceptable consequences (to the federal regulators) of a failed regulatory action are compelling them to build the most durable case they think they can construct before proceeding. I still think it is a question of when, nor if, the federal regulators will initiate their own Lehman-related enforcement actions.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the federal regulators will eventually launch their own Lehman action, it will be interesting to see if the federal action will target E&Y. Francine McKenna suggests on her Accounting Watchdog blog on the Forbes website (here), that when it comes to pursuing the accountants, the feds are all too happy to have the NYAG do the "dirty work."

For the record, I disagree with the media voices trying to suggest this is the "beginning of the end" of E&Y. This is not a criminal case of the kind that killed Arthur Anderson. This is a civil action. E&Y has taken a massive reputational hit and it likely will  have to pay substantial amounts to extricate itself from this case. But the firm's continued existence is in no danger from this case.

Susan Beck has an interesting December 21, 2010 article on the Am Law Litigation Daily (here) about the defenses that E&Y has raised to similar allegations in investor litigation relating to the Lehman collapse.

"Year in Review" Webcast: On December 29, 2010 at 1 p.m. I will be participating in a free webcast sponsored by the Securities Docket, entitled "2010 Year in Review: Securities Enforcement, Litigation & Compliance."

The panel, which will include Compliance Week editor Matt Kelly, Francine McKenna (re: The Auditors) , Mike Koehler (aka the "FCPA Professor"), Francis Pileggi (Delaware corporate law guru), Tracy Coenen (The Fraud Files), Lyle Roberts (The 10b-5 Daily) and Securities Docket’s Bruce Carton, will look back at 2010′s most significant events and trends in the areas of corporate compliance, auditor issues, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Delaware corporate law, D&O insurance issues, white collar fraud issues, securities class actions and SEC enforcement.

For further information and to register, please visit the Securities Docket webinsar webpage, here.

Season’s Greetings: Over the next few days, The D&O Diary will be taking a short holiday break. We will resume our normal publication schedule after the New Year. In the meantime, we would like to thank everyone for their support this past year and wish everyone a healthy and happy holiday season.

As our final holiday gesture, we would like to share this video (which has quickly gone viral) of the flash-mob-in-the-mall performance of The Hallelujah Chorus from Handel’s Messiah. Apparently the flash mob performance of this work has become quite the phenomenon this holiday season, to the point that a Sacramento choir’s December 20, 2010 attempt to stage its own flash mob scene resulted in a mall’s closure, as reported here.

Fortunately, the performance in this video reflects a more peaceful scene. Happy Holidays.

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

There is a reason that when class action settlements are announced, they are described as preliminary and subject to final approval – sometimes the settlements fall apart before the case is finally put to rest. That appears be what has happened with the Schwab YieldPlus subprime-related securities class action lawsuit.

As discussed here, in April 2010, the parties to the Schwab YieldPlus securities suit announced a preliminary settlement of the plaintiffs’ securities claims. At the time, the settlement did not include plaintiffs’ separate state law claims. In May 2010, Schwab announced the separate settlement of the state law claims. The total value of the agreed settlements was about $235 million.

However, in a November 8, 2010 press release (here), Charles Schwab Corporation announced that it had notified the plaintiffs in the case that it was invoking the termination provisions of the settlement agreement and withdrawing from the case.

As reflected in the November 8, 2010 notice of withdrawal that Schwab filed with the court, a copy of which can be found here, after the parties initially reached their settlements, the plaintiffs contended that the remained free to pursue certain state law claims on behalf of non-California residents. The specific claims at issue are asserted under the California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.

Schwab had contended that the form of judgment agreed upon as part of the settlement had been designed to release all claims. However, in an October 14, 2010 order (here), Northern District of California William Alsup, referring to the Section 17200 claims as "the governance claim," said that "at no time was the governance claim certified for class treatment for anyone residing out of California" and he cited language in the settlement notice that the Section 17200 claims were "not released in the settlement." He concluded that, as a result, the non-California residents’ claims "were never extinguished by the settlement," and "federal securities class members residing outside of California are free to sue under Section 17200."

In its motion to withdraw, Schwab commented that it had "agreed to a generous settlement," but only in exchange for "an end to all litigation," adding that "now that Plaintiffs have reneged on the primary consideration Schwab was to receive…Schwab has no choice but to withdraw from the joint motions for final approval."

It is hard to tell from the outside exactly what happened here – that is, whether there was some problem or misunderstanding about the way the release was put together, whether the plaintiffs somehow sandbagged the defendants, or if there was just some massive misunderstanding with respect to whether or not all of the Section 17200 claims had been settled.

The conclusion that there is no way to tell from the outside what is going on is reinforced by Judge Alsup’s October 14 order. My initial instinct was to be sympathetic with Schwab’s complaint that it had thought it was buying complete repose for its millions, but that clearly is not the conclusion that Judge Alsup reached. All in all, this is a little bit of a head-scratcher.

The one thing is clear is that as a result of Judge Alsup’s order, Schwab concluded that it had no choice except to blow up the settlement. Perhaps that will mean the case will now go forward, but of course there is always the possibility that the motion to withdraw was a form of negotiation carried out by other means.

I recently noted that it seemed as if not many of the subprime related cases were settling, even though scores of the subprime cases have survived dismissal motions. Well, now there is one fewer subprime cases. Perhaps the Schwab settlement debacle explains why so few other cases have settled – these cases are complex and the settlement efforts are tricky.

I have modified my list of subprime and credit crisis related case resolutions, which can be accessed here, to reflect Schwab’s motion to withdraw from the settlement.

Pretty Soon You’re Talking About Real Money: It just in August that the lawyers in the Lehman Brother proceedings had approached the bankruptcy court to request the release an additional $35 million from the company’s D&O insurance policies. (My post about the prior request can be found here.) The total amount of insurance that the court has now authorized, including the $35 million, is $70 million.

Now the lawyers are back. Only this time the lawyers want more. A lot more.

On October 27, 2010, the lawyers for the debtors request a fresh $90 million, which Wayne State Law Professor Peter Henning, writing on the New York Times Dealbook blog (here), interprets to mean that "the government could be closer to ending its civil and criminal investigations and moving ahead with some type of enforcement." A copy of the latest motion can be found here.

As Henning explains, Lehman had one $250 million D&O insurance tower for the period May 2007 to May 2008, and a second $250 million insurance tower for the period May 2008 to May 2009. The prior payments were made under the first of these two towers. The prior $35 million was exhausted in part by the settlement of a securities arbitration against Lehman’s former CEO, Richard Fuld. The remainder has gone to defense fees.

In their latest motion for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay, in order to permit the payment of the $90 million, the debtors are requesting the authorization of payments from the fifth, sixth and seventh excess D&O insurers in the 2007-08 tower in the total amount of $55 million, and payments of $35 million from the primary and first level excess insurers in the D&O 2008-09 tower. According to the motion, the primary and first level excess insurers in the 2008-09 towers have "recognized coverage" for certain legal proceedings.

Assuming this request will be granted, a total of $135 million out of the $250 million total in the 2007-08 tower will have been released, and now the erosion of the second tower has begun as well. The motion does not explain why the requested amount has ramped up so rapidly from the prior request, but the implications are, as Professor Henning notes, serious. At the time of the prior request I suggested that the lawyers just might succeed in depleting the entire $250 million of the 2007-08 tower. At this rate they may get there even sooner than I previously supposed. And now they are working on the second tower as well. The fees clearly are accumulating more rapidly than the $5 million a month previously supposed.

My prior post has an detailed review of the implications of these massive costs.

Special thanks to Professor Henning for providing me with a link to his blog post.

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

The September 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers resulted in the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history, as well as an explosion of litigation and regulatory actions and investigations. In the pending bankruptcy proceedings a recent motion by the debtor’s counsel details the massive legal costs accumulating in the various legal proceedings and also raises some interesting D&O insurance implications.

Special thanks to Wayne State University Law Professor Peter Henning, who provided me with copies of the bankruptcy-related documents and who previously these issues on the Dealbook blog, here.

On July 27, 2010, counsel for the debtor filed a motion in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy proceeding under Bankruptcy Code Section 362 for relief from the automatic stay in order to allow certain of Lehman’s excess D&O insurers to advance defense expenses.

According to the motion papers, for the policy period May 16, 2007 to May 16, 2008, Lehman carried an aggregate of $250 million in D&O insurance, consisting of a $20 million primary policy and sixteen layers of excess insurance. A copy of the Lehman primary policy, which is included in the bankruptcy pleadings, can be found here.

In March and November 2009, respectively, the bankruptcy court previously entered orders granting relief from the stay to allow defense fees to be paid first from the $20 million primary policy and then from the $15 million first excess policy.

However, the motion papers note, submitted defense fee statements already exceed the limits of liability of the first excess policy (i.e., the aggregate fees already exceed $35 million). The motion seeks relief from the stay to allow the second excess insurer, whose policy provides limits of $10 million in excess of $35 million, to advance defense expenses.

The motion goes on to state that the second excess policy’s $10 million excess of $35 million limits are likely to be exhausted "by August of this year." (That is, fees apparently already have or are about to top $45 million.) Accordingly the motion asks for relief from the stay for third excess policy, which provides limits of liability of $10 million excess of $45 million.

The third excess policy may also soon be exhausted. The motion suggests that the third excess policy may be exhausted by October. So the motion also asks for relief from the stay for the fourth excess policy, which provides limits of $15 million in excess of $55 million.

In answer to the obvious question of how so much defense expense could be accumulating so rapidly, the motion provides a brief recitation of the various proceedings in which the company’s former directors and officers are involved. First, there are the various securities class action lawsuit which have been brought by Lehman security holders. Then there are the various securities lawsuits which have been brought against former directors and officers in connection with the plaintiffs’ purchases of mortgage-backed securities. There are also additional actions or arbitrations which have been brought against certain individuals in connection with Lehman-issued securities, auction rate-securities and other alleged conduct.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice as well as the SEC and the New Jersey Bureau of Securities have "commenced formal grand jury and regulator investigations concerning the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the Lehman enterprise and have issued various requests and subpoenas," according to the motion papers.

All of these various proceedings undoubtedly took on a heightened sense of urgency after the March 11, 2010 release of the report of the bankruptcy examiner, Anthon Valukas, in which he referred, among many other things, to what he regarded as "actionable balance sheet manipulation."

In light of all of these various proceedings and given the fact that each of the individuals undoubtedly has their own counsel, it may be unsurprising that defense fees are accumulating so rapidly. Indeed, as Professor Henning notes in his Dealbook post, the fees seem to have been accumulating more rapidly in recent months, to the point that the fees now seem to be running at about $5 million a month. At that rate, even the fourth excess policy is likely to be exhausted before year’s end.

Given the size of Lehman’s insurance tower, there may be no immediate reason for the individual defendants to be alarmed. Even were the fourth excess policy to be soon exhausted, that would still leave $180 million in insurance available to cover the defense expenses.

But even if there may be no immediate cause for alarm for the individuals, the events so far and that likely lie ahead do present some noteworthy issues.

First, the sheer volume of defense expense so far dramatically underscores the enormous potential for a catastrophic claim to produce astonishing levels of defense expenses. To be sure, the Lehman collapse, as the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, may represent an extreme case. But it is not as if the Lehman situation is the only case where enormous defense expenses have rapidly accumulated. To cite just two examples, in prior posts I have detailed the huge defense expenses that accumulated in the Broadcom options backdating lawsuit (refer here) and in connection with the Collins & Aikman bankruptcy (refer here).

In that regard, it should noted that not only has the pace of defense fee accumulation in the Lehman case accelerated in recent months, but the fees seem likely to accumulate even more quickly if the SEC were to file an enforcement action or the DoJ were to file criminal charges. As astonishing as are the fees that have accumulated already, it seems possible (arguably, probable) that even more astonishing fees could lie ahead. Professor Henning’s blog post, linked above, discusses these possibilities in greater detail.

While it is still only the catastrophic claims circumstances that produce these kinds of enormous fees, these cases do raise some very serious questions about traditional notions of limits adequacy. The fact is that the most important purpose of D&O insurance is to ensure that the individual directors and officers are protected in the event that the corporate entity is unable to indemnify them. These catastrophic claims scenarios demonstrate how challenging it may be to ensure that the D&O insurance can provide sufficient protection at the point where it is most needed.

One answer to this challenge may be the one that Lehman itself apparently followed, which is to buy very significant amounts of D&O insurance. Of course, not every company can afford to purchase anywhere near the amount of insurance that Lehman did. (To put the Lehman insurance program into perspective, the primary policy alone – which was written over a $10 million corporate reimbursement retention – cost Lehman more than $2 million. Clearly Lehman was willing to invest very substantial sums for its executives’ protection.)

For that matter, it remains to be seen if even the huge amount of insurance that Lehman put in place will be sufficient to protect the individuals from all of the defense expenses that may lie ahead. If the SEC were to file an enforcement action and the DoJ were to pursue criminal charges, it is not impossible that the accumulating defense expenses could test even the remaining limits

(And that is without even allowing for the possibility, raised by Professor Henning in his blog post, that one or more of the excess insurers might seek to disclaim coverage – "You know how insurance companies can be," he comments.)

There are no easy solutions to these kinds of concerns, although one consideration that should be taken into account is D&O insurance program structure. That is, in addition to considering the question of how much insurance is enough, the question of what structure of insurance should be put into place should also be considered. Among other things, one particular question is whether specific parts of the program should be designated solely for the protection of specific individuals (for example, outside directors) as one way to ensure that no matter what happens there is always a specific pot of money available for the protection of those individuals.

In any event, the consequences following the Lehman collapse are continuing to unfold and undoubtedly have much further to run. The astonishing accumulation of defense expense seems likely to continue if not accelerate. Whether or to what extent any of the D&O insurance might be available to pay settlements or judgments remains to be seen.

This last point, about possible funds for settlements or judgments, does underscore an issue that could well become critically important later on. That is, the D&O insurance tower that is responding to these various proceedings is the one that was in place for the period May 2007 to May 2008. However, Lehman filed for bankruptcy in September 2008. There is in fact, according to footnote 6 of the debtor’s memorandum in support of the motion for relief from the stay, a separate $250 million insurance tower that was in place for the period May 16, 2008 to May 16, 2009.

The 2007-2008 tower presumably is the one that is responding to these various proceedings because the first of the shareholder lawsuits apparently was filed in February 2008, during the policy period of the earlier tower, and later filed proceedings apparently have been treated as interrelated with the first filed claim, and therefore relate back to the date the first claim was made.

Given the huge amount of money at stake and in light of the fact that the 2007-2008 tower is being substantially eroded, it seems probable that someone will find it worthwhile to try to establish that one or more of the various claims triggered the 2008-2009 tower. (Indeed, it may well be that this type of effort is already well underway in one or more disputes or proceedings.) Before all is said and done in connection with the fallout from the Lehman collapse, there could be many twists and turns.

With as many as 17 different D&O insurers involved in this claim, there undoubtedly are quite a number of professionals in the D&O insurance industry involved in this matter. With a situation like this, there could be some pretty good scuttlebutt. I encourage anyone involved in this matter who is willing to share to post a comment using this blog’s comment function (anonymously if necessary). I am certain there is a lot more going on in this claim than can be discerned from the bare face of the pleadings.

Finally, for those practitioners who would appreciate insight into how the D&O insurance policy operates in the bankruptcy context, the debtor’s motion makes some pretty interesting reading. The motion not only shows how the the policy proceeds are administered and monitored in light of bankruptcy procedures, but it also illustrates how various key policy provisions (for example, the priority of payments clause) are intended to operate.

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

As the subprime litigation wave evolved in late 2008, among the many cases arising were cases I described at the time as "new wave" subprime-related cases, where the target company’s financial problems were due not to the company’s own exposure to subprime-related assets, but rather due to the company’s exposure to other companies that suffered reverses because of the subprime meltdown.

One particular type of these new wave cases involved companies that were sued because of the target companies’ exposure to Lehman Brothers. In a May 17, 2010 order (here), Southern District of New York Judge John G. Koeltl ruled on the motion to dismiss in a case pending against JA Solar Holdings and certain of its directors and offices, in which it was alleged that the company had misrepresented its exposure to Lehman Brothers. In what is as far as I know the first ruling in one of the Lehman exposure cases, Judge Koetltl denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

As discussed at greater length here, JA Solar was sued in December 2008, after the company announced on November 12, 2008 that it was recording an impairment for the entire principal value of a Note the company had purchased from Lehman Treasury, a Netherlands-based affiliate of Lehman Brothers.

In July 2008, JA Solar completed a $400 million financing, following which it purchased a $100 million note from Lehman Treasury with an October 9, 2008 maturity date. The note was supposed to have 100% principal protection and was guaranteed by Lehman Brothers.

The plaintiffs alleged that the company made two sets of misrepresentations or omissions about the Note. First, in an August 12, 2008 press release and subsequent conference call, the company and its CFO mentioned that Lehman brothers was managing its cash but did not mention the purchase of the Note, or the nature of the company’s relationship to Lehman as a result of the company’s investment in the Note.

Second in a September 16, 2008 press release and conference call, on the day following the Lehman bankruptcy, the company disclosed the $100 million Note for the first time, but stressed that the Lehman unit that had issued the Note had not filed for bankruptcy and emphasized that the note was "principal protected." In the subsequent conference call, the company’s CFO stated that the company expected that at the end of the Note’s term "there will be principal and interest returned to us."

In the same call, but only in response to analysts’ questioning, the CFO acknowledged that the only recourse if the Lehman affiliate company does not repay the Note was a guarantee by Lehman, which was in bankruptcy.

On November 12, 2008, the company recorded a $100 million impairment charge for the value of the Note.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the company had no duty to disclose the Note in the August communications and that the total information in the September call adequately disclosed the information about the Note and the Lehman guarantee.

Judge Koeltl found that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that in the August conference call the company’s CEO had made a misleading statement about Lehman’s role with the company. He found that the statements misrepresented "how JA Solar’s cash was invested and the truthful nature of JA’s Solar’s relationship with Lehman Brothers."

Judge Koeltl also found that the plaintiff had adequately alleged misrepresentations in connection with the September statements. Among other things, the company’s CEO had stressed that the Note has "100% principal protection" without stating that "any possible protection was provided solely by the bankrupt Lehman Brothers." Judge Koeltl added that "it is difficult to understand how JA Solar could have assured investors that the Note was fully protected when the only protection was provided by a company in bankruptcy."

Judge Koeltl rejected the defendants’ arguments that, in response to the analysts’ questions, the CFO had clarified the full effect of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. Judge Koeltl said that whether the statements effectively counterbalanced the prior statements is a factual question "that cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss," adding that the plaintiffs "have pleaded sufficient facts at this stage to call in to question whether Mr. Lui’s statements cleansed the allegedly misleading statements. "

Finally Judge Koeltl found that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged scienter, finding that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the defendants knew in August that "JA Solar had not simply engaged Lehman Brothers to manage its cash, but rather than JA Solar had purchased the $100 million Note" which was guaranteed by Lehman from a Lehman affiliate. He also found the defendants knew "in spite of their statements in September 2008 that the Note had 100% principal protection and that they expected the principal and interest to be returned, that Lehman Brothers was the only guarantor of the Note and that Lehman Brothers was, in fact, in bankruptcy."

Judge Koeltl found that the defendants’ knowledge of these facts, in contradiction of their public statements, "satisfies the scienter requirement."

While a lot might be said about this decision, the overall impression is that Judge Koeltl was persuaded that the company had simply not been candid about its exposure to Lehman Brothers. Of course, it is hard now to recall how tumultuous and uncertain things were in the days in early fall 2008, but alleged facts create the impression that the company was straining to avoid disclosing how exposed it was to Lehman Brothers. Whether the defendants actually believed they would be able to redeem the Note at maturity, notwithstanding Lehman’s bankruptcy, is one issue that will have to be sorted out in this case as it goes forward.

I have in any event added the ruling in the JA Solar case to my running tally of subprime-related dismissal motions rulings, which can be accessed here.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the JA Solar opinion.

Apologies: My apologies that this blog site was unavailable almost the entire day on May 17, 2010. Once again my hosting service, LexBlog, experienced server problems that managed to take the entire site offline for an extended period of time. I apologize to anyone inconvenienced by this hosting service failure.

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

According to the March 11, 2010 bankruptcy examiner’s report, the collapse of Lehman Brothers was a result of the deteriorating economic climate, exacerbated by Lehman’s executives, whose conduct ranged from "serious but non-culpable errors of business judgment to actionable balance sheet manipulation."

The Report was prepared pursuant to a January 2009 bankruptcy court order directing the trustee to appoint an examiner to investigate the events leading up to Lehman’s collapse. The examiner appointed was Anton Valukas of the Jenner & Block law firm.

The full report is nine volumes long, consisting of 2,200 pages, and can be found here. The executive summary (which alone is 239 pages long) can be found here. According to news reports, Valukas spent $38 million conducting his examination. He and his team interviewed more than 100 people and scrutinized more than 10 million documents, plus 20 million pages of e-mails from Lehman.

The examiner’s report states that as conditions worsened during 2008 and in order to "buy itself time," Lehman "painted a misleading picture of its financial condition." For example, the report states, that while reporting a significant loss at the end of the second quarter 2008, Lehman "sought to cushion the bad news by trumpeting that it had significantly reduced its net leverage ratio," while failing to disclose that it had been using an "accounting device" – known as Repo 105 – that had "no substance" and whose sole purpose was to allow Lehman to "manage its balance sheet."

The report states that Lehman neither disclosed its use of nor "the significance of the use of the magnitude of its use of" Repo 105, to the Government, to rating agencies, to investors or even to its own Board. Its auditors were aware of but did not question the transaction. The Repo 105 balance sheet manipulation is summarized on the WSJ.com Deal Journal blog, here.

The examiner concluded that the business decisions that brought Lehman to a crisis "may have been in error but were largely within the business judgment rule." However, the "decision not to disclose the effects of these judgments does give rise to colorable claims against the senior officers who oversaw and certified misleading financial statements," including CEO Richard Fuld and the company’s CFOs, Christopher O’Meara, Erin Callan and Ian Lowitt.

The examiner also found that there is a "colorable claim that the "sole function" of the Repo 105 transactions was "balance sheet manipulation" that "created a misleading picture of Lehman’s true financial health."

The examiner also concluded that there are "colorable claims" against the company’s auditor, Ernst & Young, on the grounds that it "did not meet professional standards" for its "failure to question and challenge improper or inadequate as disclosures."

The examiner’s report explains that the report uses the phrase a "colorable claim" to mean one for which "there is sufficient credible evidence to support a finding by a trier of fact," without presuming the finder of fact’s ultimate conclusion.

The examiner also reviewed the actions of Lehman’s lenders, JP Morgan and Citigroup. The report concludes that "The demands for collateral by Lehman’s lenders had direct impact on Lehman’s liquidity pool," adding that "Lehman’s available liquidity is central to the question of why Lehman failed." Citigroup, which handled currency trades for Lehman, received a new guarantee from Lehman when Lehman was already insolvent and didn’t give enough value in return, the report said. The report concludes that "a colorable claim exists to avoid the Amended Guaranty as constructively fraudulent."

The examiner also reviewed the acquisition of Lehman’s North American brokerage, concluding that "a limited amount of assets" belonging to Lehman were "improperly transferred to Barclays."

The examiner recites at the outset of the report that under the relevant bankruptcy code provisions one purpose of a bankruptcy examination is to determine the existence of "a cause of action for the estate." Given the bankruptcy examiner’s conclusion that there are colorable claims against Fuld and the other former Lehman’s officials, as well as against its outside auditor, it seems reasonable to anticipate that the next step with be the bankruptcy trustee’s initiation of claims against these individuals and the auditor.

By way of comparison, after the New Century Financial bankruptcy examiner issued a report issued a report critical of company officials and the company’s auditor (about which refer here), the bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit (refer here) seeking to hold New Century’s auditors liable. In addition, the claimants in the New Century securities class action lawsuit relied heavily on the Examiner's findings in their amended complaint, which later suvived a motion to dismiss. I noted at the time of the dimissal that the bankruptcy examiner's findings may have strongly influenced the court in its dismissal motion ruling.

General Growth Properties Settles Credit Crisis-Related Securities Suit: According to a February 23, 2010 filing in the Northern District of Illinois, the parties to the credit crisis-related securities suit arising out of the collapse of General Growth Properties has been settled for $15.5 million, subject to court approval. The parties’ stipulation of settlement can be found here.

The General Growth Properties suit was one of the cases first filed in late 2008 as the subprime meltdown morphed into a full blown credit crisis, as I discussed in a post at the time, here.

The lead complaint, which can be found here, was filed in January 2009. The plaintiffs alleged that General Growth’s survival depended on its ability to refinance in November 2008 approximately $1.5 billion of its $27 billion of outstanding debt. Ultimately the company was unable to refinance its debt and it filed for bankruptcy in April 2009. The plaintiffs essentially alleged that the eleven individual defendants misrepresented the company’s ability to refinance its debt.

The complaint also alleged that the company’s senior executives had improperly loaned money to certain executives so that the executives did not have to sell their company shares in a margin call. The companies also allege that the company’s officials improperly sought to have the company’s shares included in the SEC’s short selling ban, so that the officials could sell their share at inflated prices.

In a September 29, 2009 opinion (here), Northern District of Illinois Milton Shadur granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. According to the settlement stipulation, in January 2010, the parties submitted the case to mediation, from which the settlement ultimately resulted.

The General Growth suit is one of only a handful of cases filed in the wake of the subprime meltdown and the ensuing credit crisis that has reached the settlement stage, and one of only a smaller handful of cases that have been settled following a dismissal motion ruling. We undoubtedly will see more settlements ahead as more cases work their way through the system.

I have in any event added the General Growth Properties settlement to my list of subprime and credit crisis-related case resolutions, which can be accessed here. My recent status update on the subprime and credit crisis related securities litigation can be found here.

Special thanks to Adam Savett of the Securities Litigation Watch blog for providing me with a copy of the stipulation of settlement.

Hello Polly: Many readers undoubtedly saw the article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (here) reporting that the Bank of America has apologized after its local contractor entered the home of a mortgage borrower, while she was away, and cutoff her utilities, padlocked the door and "confiscated her pet parrot, Luke." The homeowner, separated from her parrot for a week, filed a lawsuit against the bank for emotional distress.

This momentous story was deemed by the Journal’s editors to be worthy of a front page photograph of the homeowner, now fortunately reunited with her beloved parrot.

We mention this because, as was pointed out to us by a loyal reader, the Journal’s front page above- the- fold color photograph was headlined with the phrase "Hello, I Wish to Register a Complaint." We suspect that the Journal’s editors ran the picture on the front page for the sole reason that it gave them an excuse to use that headline.

If the topic is parrots, the only possible reference is to the immortal Monty Python dead parrot sketch, which believe it or not has its own Wikipedia page, here. The skit begins with John Cleese entering a pet shop and stating (as reflected in this script of the sketch) "Hello, I wish to register a complaint." Cleese’s problem in the sketch is not that his parrot has been confiscated; rather, his problem is that the parrot he had just purchased is dead. Deceased. It is no more. It has ceased to exist. It has joined the choir celestial. This is an ex-parrot

We are delighted to have this pretext to be able to embed a video of the sketch below. Because we think everyone should know a dead parrot when they see one.

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