In its latest failed bank lawsuit, the FDIC, in its capacity as receiver of the failed County Bank of Merced, California, has filed a complaint against five former officer of the bank. The FDIC’s complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 27, 2012, just short of three years from the date of the bank’s closure. A copy of the FDIC’s complaint can be found here.
County Bank failed on February 6, 2009 and the FDIC was appointed as its receiver. The FDIC’s lawsuit has been filed against five former officers of the bank, each of whom served on the bank’s Executive Loan Committee. The complaint alleges claims against them for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, in connection with 12 loans the bank made between December 2005 and June 2008, which the FDIC says caused the bank losses in excess of $42 million.
The FDIC alleges that the five defendants caused or allowed the bank to make “Imprudent real estate loans, typically for the construction and development of residences.” The complaint alleges that the bank’s real estate lending represented “significant departures from safe and sound practices.” The complaint further alleges that the bank’s management “disregarded the Bank’s credit policies and approved loans to borrowers who were not credit worthy and/or for projects that provided insufficient collateral and guarantees for repayment.” The complaint further alleges that the bank’s management “unwisely continued risky commercial real estate lending in a deteriorating market even after becoming aware of the market decline.”
The FDIC filed its complaint only days before the third anniversary of the bank’s closure – that is, just before the expiration of the statute of limitations period within which the FDIC could bring its claims. Up until this point during the current bank failure wave, the FDIC has been proceeding very deliberately, in most cases filing lawsuits only after two years or more has elapsed since the date of bank closure.
The FDIC’s filing of this action just before the end of the limitations period is reminder that notwithstanding the FDIC’s deliberate pace in filing these lawsuits, the FDIC does face certain absolute time deadlines. Moreover, this particular bank’s closure occurred at a time when the number of bank closures began to escalate rapidly. The FDIC took control of increasing numbers of banks as 2009 progressed and on in to early 2010, which means that the limitations period within which the FDIC will have to file lawsuits will be about to run out for a host of failed banks in the coming months.
There were a total of 140 bank failures in 2009, ten in February 2009 alone, after only 25 bank failures in all of 2008. The numbers of bank closures escalated even further after February 2009. Indeed, there 95 bank failures in the last six months of 2009. In other words, as we move through 2012, the FDIC will be approaching the statute of limitations deadline for increasing numbers of banks.
In light of the approaching limitations deadline the 2009 bank failures, it seems likely that over the next few months we will see a surge in case filings, many, like the complaint here, filed at the very end of the applicable limitations period.
In any event, the FDIC’s action in the County Bank case represents the twenty-first failed bank action the agency has filed so far as part of the current bank failure wave, and already the third so far in 2012. The FDIC’s first two actions this year, both of which were filed in Puerto Rico, are described here.
Year End Securities Litigation Review Webinar: On February 1, 2012 at 11:00 am EST, I will be participating in a year-end securities litigation review webinar sponsored by Advisen . The webinar will be moderated by Advisen’s Jim Blinn and will also include my good friend David Williams of Chubb. The webinar is free. To register and for additional information, refer here.
An inevitable part of the current wave of bank failures has been the FDIC’s filing of lawsuits against former directors and officers of the failed institutions. And though the FDIC’s initiation of this litigation has been gradual, the lawsuits have now started to accumulate in significant numbers. And just as this FDIC litigation was perhaps inevitable once the banks started to faile, so too it was also perhaps inevitable that the FDIC lawsuits would be accompanied by D&O insurance coverage litigation.
As discussed below, the failed bank insurance coverage lawsuits are now starting to arrive. If the initial cases are any indication, one of the main coverage battlegrounds will be the typical D&O insurance policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion. Specifically, the question will be whether the FDIC as receiver pursuing the failed bank’s claim against the bank’s former directors and officers is acting as an “insured” under the D&O policy so as to preclude coverage under the policy.
First up in this analysis is Michigan Heritage Bank of Farmington Hills, Michigan, which failed on August 29, 2009 (about which refer here). As discussed in greater detail here, on August 8, 2011, the FDIC, as the bank’s receiver, filed a lawsuits in the Eastern District of Michigan against a single former officer of the bank.
What followed next is that on November 1, 2011, Michigan Heritage’s D&O insurer filed an action in the Eastern District of Michigan seeking a judicial declaration that there is no coverage for the underlying lawsuit or for the bank officer’s defense expenses under the bank’s D&O policy. A copy of the insurer’s declaratory judgment complaint can be found here.
Among other things, the carrier seeks a judicial declaration that the policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion precludes coverage for the underlying lawsuit. The insurer’s argument is that as the bank’s receiver, the FDIC is asserting the bank’s own claims and is seeking to recover the bank’s losses. Therefore, the carrier contends, the FDIC’s lawsuit is a claim “by, on behalf of, or at the behest of” the bank, and as the bank and the defendant loan officer are both insureds under the policy, the policy’s Insured vs. Insured exclusion precludes coverage.
A very similar sequence has also followed with respect to Westernbank, of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, which failed on April 30, 2010. As reflected here, on December 17, 2010, the FDIC, through its outside counsel, sent a letter to Westernbank’s D&O insurer asserting claims against the bank’s former directors and officers.
Westernbank’s directors and officers , in turn, on October 6, 2011, filed an action in local Puerto Rico court seeking judicial declaration that the FDIC’s claim is covered under the bank’s D&O policy. The complaint, which is in Spanish, can be found here. According to an October 14, 2011 press release from the direcrors and officers' counsel, the complaint seeks a judicial declaration with respect to “the controversial and critical question whether the FDIC-R can be deemed an insured under the Policy so as to excuse [the carrier] from providing coverage.”
Though these declaratory judgment actions have only just been filed, they are in many ways a vestige of an earlier time. As I discussed in a blog post way back in August 2008, when the current bank wave was only just starting to unfold, the question whether the Insured vs. Insured exclusion precluded coverage for claims by the FDIC as receiver against former directors and officers of failed banks was hotly contested during the S&L crisis. As I said in my earlier post, and as appears likely now, the Insured vs. Insured exclusion could be a critical part of the failed bank insurance coverage litigation during the current round of bank failures as well.
During the S&L crisis, where the FDIC had its greatest success in overcoming the Insured vs. Insured exclusion was where it was able to argue successfully that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion precluded coverage only with respect to collusive lawsuits. Because it was able to show that its claims and lawsuits were fully adversarial, it was able to establish that the exclusion did not apply.
The FDIC was not uniformly successful in arguing that the exclusion only precluded collusive claims, and there has in fact been some intervening case law to the effect that the Insured vs. Insured exclusion applies even when the underlying claim is not collusive.
It will in any event be interesting to see how these coverage cases develop. The one thing that seems certain is that as the FDIC failed bank litigation continues to accumulate, so too will the related coverage litigations. Many of the related coverage suits likely will also involve these same Insured vs. Insured issues.
Another issue that is likely to be litigated in coverage cases arising out of FDIC failed bank litigation is the enforceabilty of the so-called Regulatory Exclusion, which when present in the D&O policy precludes coverage for claims brought by the FDIC and other regulators. Not all policies implicated in the bank failures have these exclusions, but where they are present they are likely to be relied upon by the carriers to contest coverage. It is probably worth noting that these issues were fully litigated during the S&L crisis and the courts generally found that the regulatory exclusion precluded coverge for FDIC claims. My prior blog post about the regulatory exclusion can be found here.
A good summary of the D&O insurance coverage issues involved in FDIC failed bank litigation can be found here.
Special thanks to the several loyal readers who sent me links to ths source documents referenced above.
As a result of the First Circuit’s January 20, 2011 opinion, the plaintiffs in the Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation mortgage-backed securities lawsuit have managed to revive a slender portion of their case, albeit on a rather precarious basis. The First Circuit otherwise affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the remainder of their case.
The First Circuit’s opinion could be influential in other mortgage-backed securities suits, particularly on questions surrounding the standing of claimants to assert claims based on offerings in which they did not purchase securities.
The First Circuit’s January 20 opinion can be found here.
Background
As discussed here, purchasers of mortgage pass-through certificates filed this action in March 2008 against Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, certain of its directors and officers, the eight mortgage trusts that had issued the certificates, and the offering underwriters who had supported the 2005 and 2006 public offerings of the certificates.
On September 30, 2009, District of Massachusetts Judge Richard G.Stearns granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, as discussed here. Judge Stearns held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims in connection with the six out of the eight offerings in which the named plaintiffs had not purchased certificates. Judge Stearns found that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled claims with respect to the two remaining offerings.
With respect to the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the mortgage originators’ underwriting standards, Judge Stearns found that the offering documents contain a "fusillade of cautionary statements" that "abound with warnings about the potential perils." Judge Stearns noted that plaintiffs’ contention that they were not "on notice" of those perils "begs credulity."
The plaintiffs appealed.
The January 20 Opinion
In a January 20 opinion written by Judge Michael Boudin for a three judge panel, the First Circuit affirmed Judge Stearns’ dismissal except with respect to the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the mortgage originators’ underwriting practices.
With respect to the standing issue, the plaintiffs had argued that the class action vehicle affords a proper basis for representative plaintiffs to assert claims for a broad class of claimants, and that the eight mortgage-backed offerings were sufficiently linked by the common shelf registrations statement on which the certificate issuer relied.
In rejecting these assertions and concluding that the named plaintiffs lacked standing in the six offerings in which they themselves had not purchased securities, the First Circuit stated:
In our case, as in others involving mortgage-backed securities, the necessary identify of issues and alignment of incentives is not present so far as the claims involve sales of certificates in the six trusts. Each trust is backed by loans from a different mix of banks; no named plaintiff has a significant interest in establishing wrongdoing by the particular group of banks that financed a trsut from which the named plaintiffs made no purchases. Thus, the claims related to the six trusts from which the named plaintiffs never purchased securities were properly dismissed, as were the six trusts and defendants connected to nly those six trusts.
The First Circuit also noted that "the named plaintiffs have no stake in establishing liability as to misconduct involving the sales of those certificates."
The First Circuit then turned to the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ allegations of securities law violations. The First Circuit had little trouble affirming the district court’s dismissal with respect to the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning mortgage appraiser practices and concerning the offering documents statement of the rating agencies ratings.
However, the First Circuit reached a different conclusion with respect to the plaintiffs allegations that, contrary to representations in the offering documents, the originators of the mortgages underlying the certificates "routinely violated" lending guidelines and instead simply approved as many loans as possible.
The First Circuit acknowledged the district court’s conclusion that the offering documents contained warnings about the mortgage originators’ practices, but disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that these warnings precluded a possible finding of liability. (The First Circuit omitted to mention that the district court had found that the offering documents contain a "fusillade of cautionary statements" and that it "begs credulity" that the plaintiffs were not put on notice of these concerns.)
The First Circuit, by contrast to the district court found that "plaintiffs’ allegations of wholesale abandonment may not be proved, but – if accepted at this stage – it is enough to defeat dismissal." The First Circuit found that "the specific allegations" as to the mortgage originator’s practices "offer enough basis to warrant some initial discovery aimed at these precise allegations."
Having granted the plaintiffs a revival of at least one category of their claims, the First Circuit made it clear that the revived claims may have only a precarious lease on life. The First Circuit added with respect to these claims that the district court is "free to limit discovery stringently and to revisit the adequacy of the allegations thereafter and even before possible motions summary judgment."
Discussion
A recurring question in many of these mortgage-backed securities suits had been the question whether or not a named plaintiff that bought securities in one offering initiated pursuant to a shelf registration statement can assert claims based on other offering based on the same shelf registration, even if the named plaintiffs bought no securities in the other offerings.
In general, the district courts have been holding that the plaintiffs lack standing at least as to the offerings in which they did not purchase securities, but the question has continued to arise.
As the first Court of Appeals ruling on this question as part of the current wave of subprime-related litigation, the First Circuit’s conclusion on the standing issues is likely to be highly influential even outside of the First Circuit, and indeed could just about put an end to the issue.
The First Circuit’s reversal with respect to the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the mortgage originators’ underwriting practices is interesting, if for no reason than the rather stark difference in perceptions of the plaintiffs’ allegations at the district court level and at the appellate court level. Whereas, the district court found that the suggestion that investors were not put on notice of the alleged practices "begs credulity," the appellate court, while providing relatively little explanation for its different conclusion, found that the allegations at least merited some discovery.
Perhaps the one way that the First Circuit’s differing conclusion may be understood is by reference to many other district court opinions in mortgage-backed securities cases in which the courts have concluded that allegations that the mortgage originators "systematically disregarded" stated underwriting guidelines are sufficient to state a claim. The First Circuit did not refer to these other court’s conclusion, but its holding shares a common thread with these other courts’ decisions.
And so the plaintiffs in this case have (just) managed to live for another day – at least as to two of the eight offerings, and at least one of the three categories of alleged misrepresentations. Whether this new lease on life in the end will be sufficient for the plaintiffs remains to be seen. The First Circuit issued an engraved invitation for the district court on remand to afford the plaintiffs only the most circumscribed discovery and also to revisit the adequacy of the plaintiffs’ claims – "even before summary judgment," whatever that may have been meant to suggest.
I have in any event modified my running tally of the subprime and credit crisis lawsuit dismissal motions to reflect the First Circuit’s limited reversal of the district court’s dismissal in this case. The dismissal motion register can be accessed here.
The First Circuit’s reversal, however limited, does at least serves as a reminder that it may be dangerous to jump to too many conclusions about how plaintiffs are faring in the subprime and credit crisis related cases. There are still many more cases to be heard, and, as this case shows, there is always the possibility that further proceedings may alter or even undo prior results.
It is probably worth noting that the First Circuit’s opinion in the Nomura case represents the forth appellate ruling so far as part of the litigation wave arising out of the subprime meltdown and credit crisis-related litigation wave. As discussed in my recent status update on the credit crisis litigation, appellate courts have affirmed the dismissals of at least three subprime securities suits: NovaStar Financial (here), Centerline (here) and Impac Mortgage (here). The Nomura case represents the first appellate decision that did not result in a complete affirmance of the lower court’s ruling of dismissal.
Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of the First Circuit’s opinion in the Nomura case.
Law Firm Memo Round-Up: From this week’s mailbag, here is a brief register of several law firm memos. First, a January 11, 2011 memo from the Vinson & Elkins law firm presents a brief update of the current state of play regarding ERISA stock drop cases. Second, the 2011 Edition of "Corporate Governance and Securities law: A Public Company Handbook" from the Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle law firm can be found here. Finally, the Shearman & Sterling law firm’s January 2011 memo entitled "FCPA Digest: Recent Trends and Patterns in the Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act" can be found here.
As Israel is to Louisiana, Nigeria is to Alabama: And Yemen is to Vermont, at least according to an absolutely fascinating map published this past week in The Economist magazine that matches each U.S. state with a country whose GDP most closely resembles that particular state’s GDP. Ohio’s economy is comparable, for example to Belgium’s, while New York’s is equivalent to that of Australia, and Virginia’s is comparable to Poland. Even the District of Columbia is the equivalent of Kuwait.
The comparisons are interesting, but the larger message is that every single U.S. state has an economy as big as that of some countries, so collectively the United States economy is huge.
.
The map also affords interesting comparisons by population.. If you click on the blue "Population" box, the map displays the country whose population size is equivalent to each state – Oklahoma is comparable to Congo-Brazzaville, Virginia is equivalent to Burundi, Idaho is equivalent to Guinea-Bissau, Wyoming is equivalent to the Solomon Islands, Colorado is equivalent to Eritrea, and so on.Absolutely fascinating.
A Moviegoer’s Comment: This past Saturday night after a viewing of the film "The King’s Speech," the audience in the east side Cleveland movie theater where my wife and I were watching the film broke into applause. Now, I enjoyed the film and I appreciated the actors’ fine performances. But exactly to whom or to what was the audience showing its appreciation? Am I the only one that finds applauding for a movie a little odd?
Admittedly, it is unusual for me to have seen this movie, or any movie, in a theater. Our viewing of "The King’s Speech" marked the first time that my wife and I had gone to the movies, just the two of us, since we saw "The Madness of King George" about sixteen years ago. Without intending, we seem to have limited our range of moviegoing exclusively to films portraying British monarchs named George that have disabilities constraining their abilities to fulfill their kingly duties. This is, shall we say, a rather limited genre. .
I don’t know if there is such an Oscar, but if there were an award for best adaptation of classical music for dramatic effect, "The King’s Speech" would be a clear winner. The film’s use of the first portion of the Second Movement from Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony during the dramatic moment that Colin Firth as King George VI finally delivered his "speech" was brilliant. The movie ends with an excerpt from Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto, which is a nice touch, as well.
In appreciation for the movie’s use of music, here is video with an interesting graphic depiction of the Second Movement from Beethoven’s 7th.
More banks have failed in Georgia than any other state as part of the current bank failure wave, but the FDIC had not yet filed a civil action against the former officials of a failed Georgia bank – that is, until now. On January 14, 2011, in what is the third FDIC lawsuit overall against former officials of a failed bank as part of the current round of bank failures, the FDIC filed a lawsuit against eight former officials of the failed Integrity Bank of Alpharetta, Georgia. The FDIC’s complaint can be found here.
UPDATE: As discussed further below, in addition to the Integrity Bank case, the FDIC also filed a separate lawsuit on January 14, 2011 in the Central District of California against former directors and officers of the failed 1st Centennial Bank of Redlands, California.
Including one bank closed already in 2011, there have been 52 bank failures in Georgia since January 1, 2008. Integrity Bank was one of the first in Georgia to fail when it was closed on August 28, 2008.
In some ways, it may come as no surprise that the FDIC filed its first failed bank lawsuit in Georgia against officials from Integrity Bank. As noted here, the FDIC had successfully intervened in a derivative lawsuit brought by the trustee of the bank’s bankrupt holding company. In moving to intervene in the trustee’s lawsuit, the FDIC had said that it intended to file its own lawsuit against former Integrity bank officials.
In addition, two former Integrity officials have already drawn criminal charges involving activities at the bank, as discussed here. One of the two indicted Integrity officials, Douglas Ballard, is also named as a defendant in the FDIC’s civil lawsuit. As noted here, in July 2010, the two individuals entered criminal guilty pleas in the case.
As noted in Scott Trubey’s January 18, 2011 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article about the FDIC’s civil suit (here), among the former Integrity Bank officials names as defendants in the FDIC’s lawsuit is Georgia State Senator Jack S. Murphy, who was only recently named as Chairman of the Georgia Senate Banking Committee. Another defendant, Clinton M. Day, a former bank chairman, previously was a state senator and was at one time the Republican Candidate for lieutenant governor, and also once served on the Senate Banking Committee
The FDIC, which filed the lawsuit in its capacity as Integrity Bank’s receiver, seeks to recover “over $70 million in losses” that the FDIC alleges the bank suffered on 21 commercial and residential acquisition, development and construction loans between February 4, 2005 and May 2, 2007.
The 56-page complaint, which names as defendants eight former directors of the company who also served on the bank’s director loan committee, alleges one count of negligence and gross negligence, and one count of breach of fiduciary duties.
The complaint alleges that the 21 loans at issue were “concentrated in a small number of preferred individual borrowers,” in violation both of the bank’s own lending policies and applicable statutory lending limits. The loans are alleged to have been made without appropriate documentation and with inadequate collateral. The complaint alleges that state and federal regulators “repeatedly warned” the bank about its heavily concentrated loan portfolio and lax oversight and control of its lending function.
The complaint concludes that “the years of excess risk taking and lack of oversight by the Defendants that fueled Integrity’s astronomical growth ultimately led to its failure on August 29, 2008.” The complaint also quotes the bank’s founder as admitting that “Our overwhelming success up to [mid-2006] became intoxicating and we shifted some of our focus from asset quality to earnings and growth which was a mistake …[t]his shift in our focus also created gaps in the enforcement of Bank policies and procedures. In other words, we became lax on having our checker checking the checker.”
Though a total of 325 banks have failed since January 1, 2008 (through Friday January 14, 2011), the Integrity Bank lawsuit is only the FDIC’s third lawsuit against former officials of failed banks filed as part of the current wave of bank failures. There undoubtedly are more lawsuits to come, as the FDIC’s website indicates (here) that through December 2010 the FDIC has authorized lawsuits against a total of 109 former bank officials. The website clearly shows that lawsuits against additional officials are being authorized each month.
With the likelihood of many more lawsuits to come, I have started a list of the FDIC’s lawsuits, which can be accessed on accompanying blog post, here.
Special thanks to alert loyal readers who alerted me to this new lawsuit.
UPDATE: FDIC Also FIles Suit Against 1st Centennial Bank: After I first published this blog post, I learned that that in addition to the Integrity Bank lawsuit, the FDIC also filed a lawsuit on January 14, 2011 against 12 former directors and officers of the failed 1st Centennial Bank of Redlands, California. A copy of the FDIC's 1st Centennial complaint can be found here.
1st Centennial failed on January 23, 2009, so the FDIC's lawsuit arrived about two years after the bank first failed.
The complaint alleges that after a period of rapid growth, and at a time when it was apparent that the Southern California real estate market was already in decilne, the bank increased its exposure to the riskiest loans, in excess of regulatory limits. The complaint alleges that by concentrating the bank's activities in these riskiest loans, the bank suffered capital and liquidity problems. The complaint specifically alleges that the defendants 16 specific loans that caused the bank at least $26.8 million in losses. The complaint alleges that the bank's failure caused the FDIC insurance fund losses of about $163 million.
I have added the 1st Centennial bank complaint to my list of bank lawsuits, which as a result of this latest suit now shows that the FDIC has launched a total of four lawsuits so far as part of the current wave of bank failures.
If the number of out of office messages sent back when I sent out new blog post email notifications during August are any indication, many readers have been away for some or all of the past few weeks. I hope you saved the little paper umbrella from the fruity drink that you and your spouse shared on the terrace of the outdoor café and that you are still finding sand in your tennis shoes.
Sadly, the summer eventually ends and everyone eventually has to go back to school.
Now that you are back at your desk, you will want to get caught up, especially because while you were away, the blogosphere continued to gyrate, and The D&O Diary continued to publish new posts. Here’s just some of what you missed:
The Nuts and Bolts of D&O: I have now published three installments in my ongoing series about the nuts and bolts of D&O insurance, the latest of which relates to the policyholder’s obligations under the D&O policy. The prior posts in the series related to the relationship of indemnification and insurance, and to the insuring agreement in the Policy. Additional installments will be forthcoming in the weeks ahead.
Guest Posts: I have been delighted to be able to publish a number of interesting guest posts over the past several weeks.
First, I published, in the form of two separate posts (here and here), an interesting exchange between Milberg partner Michael Spencer and Minnesota Law Professor Richard Painter, on the question of the impact of the Morrison v. National Australia Bank case.
And finally, I published a post (here) written by former plaintiffs’ securities attorney Bill Lerach, who had some spirited comments about my prior post discussing an article by three academics about whether corporate defendants that settle securities suits suffering continuing financial detriments. I published the academics’ response to Mr. Lerach over this past weekend.
Subprime Cases: There have been a number of significant dismissal motion rulings in subprime-related securities cases, including the partial dismissal in the BofA/Merrill merger case and the dismissal in the SunTrust case. In addition, the New Century Financial case settled for about $125 million. My updated list of subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuit dismissal motion ruling can be found here.
Coming Attractions: Now that everyone is caught up, tomorrow morning I will be publishing my annual survey of the D&O marketplace, “What to Watch Now in the World of D&O.” Watch this site.
Speakers’ Corner: On September 29, 2010, I will be speaking at C5’s 5th European Forum on D&O Liability Insurance in Cologne, Germany. I will be participating on a panel with Maurice Pesso of the White & Williams law firm on the topic “Why European Directors of U.S. Companies Should Worry About Their Exposure to U.S. Class Action Claims” – a topic that has changed pretty dramatically in the last few months. Information about the conference can be found here. I will look forward to seeing and greeting my European readers at this upcoming conference.
In an unpublished August 18, 2008 per curiam opinion (here), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling in the CNL Resorts case that a Section 11 settlement is not covered "loss" under a D&O insurance policy. The appeals court reversed and remanded the case on other grounds, as discussed below.
This coverage action arose out of an underlying securities class action (about which refer here), in which the plaintiffs alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiffs alleged that they had purchased their CNL shares at an inflated price of $20/share. The plaintiffs sought to recover the $8/share difference between what they had paid and the $12/share valuation that was later placed on the company. CNL settled this shareholder action for $35 million. Details regarding the settlement can be found here.
CNL had a $30 million D&O insurance program, arranged in three layers of $10 million each. CNL initiated a declaratory judgment action against the three insurers, seeking a determination of coverage for the settlement as well as related litigation costs and expenses and other amounts. CNL reached a settlement with the primary insurer, but the action proceeded as to CNL’s two excess insurers.
As I discussed in a prior post (here), on March 17, 2007, the district court granted partial summary judgment on behalf of the two excess insurers. The district court held that the $35 million settlement represented a disgorgement of CNL’s "ill-gotten gain," which did not constitute a "loss" under the relevant policy language and therefore is not insurable under applicable law.
In its August 18 opinion, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed this portion of the district court’s rulings. The Eleventh Circuit said that "because we conclude that the payment to the Purchaser Class was restitutionary in nature, the payment was not covered loss" and the excess carriers are "not liable for payment."
CNL had argued on appeal that the $35 million settlement did not represent the return of ill-gotten gains, contending that "without a finding of fraud, it is impossible to conclude that the money was wrongly acquired." The Eleventh Circuit said that "the return of money received through a violation of law, even if the actions of the recipient were innocent, constitutes a restitutionary payment, not a ‘loss’." The Eleventh Circuit also affirmatively held that Section 11 damages are restitutionary in nature.
The Eleventh Circuit also rejected CNL’s argument based on the statement in the settlement agreement that the $35 million was not "restitution or disgorgement." The Eleventh Circuit said that the settlement agreement "is not binding on any third party or this Court. The policy, not the settlement agreement, governs our resolution of this appeal."
The Eleventh Circuit did reverse a separate summary judgment ruling of the district court. The separate ruling related to the question of coverage for the settlement of the claims of a separate plaintiff class, the so-called Proxy Class, which had alleged misrepresentations in proxy materials. CNL had settled with this separate class in an agreement that, among other things, had resulted in its payment of the Proxy Class counsel’s fees of $5.5 million.
The primary insurer, in its separate settlement with CNL, had agreed to reimburse CNL for this $5.5 million settlement. The excess insurers argued, based on language in the primary policy, that the $5.5 million settlement did not represent covered "loss," and therefore the primary policy had not been depleted by payment of covered loss and the excess carriers’ payment obligation had not been triggered. The district court granted summary judgment on this issue for the excess insurers.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed this portion of the district court’s ruling. The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further factual proceedings on the question whether the language on which the excess carriers sought to rely properly is a part of the primary policy. The question to be determined is whether or not the relevant policy endorsement form had been filed with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, as the form would be void if not so filed.
At one level, the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s ruling on the question of coverage for Section 11 settlements represents a significant development. A federal appellate court’s adoption of the position that a company’s Section 11 settlement is not covered loss under a D&O policy certainly reinforces the developing case authority on this point. The possibility that another court might reach a different conclusion seems increasingly remote.
At the same time, there are limitations on the significant of the Eleventh Circuit opinion. The first is that the opinion itself carries the designation "Do Not Publish." This is less of a restriction in the Eleventh Circuit than it might be in other courts; some courts actually prohibit the citation of unpublished opinions. The Eleventh Circuit’s Rule 36-3 (refer here) specifies that "unpublished opinions are not binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority." Thus, the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion may at least be cited, but it still does not represent binding authority.
There is a practical development that also diminishes the significance of the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion. That is, since the time of the district court’s summary judgment ruling on the question of coverage for Section 11 settlements, most D&O carriers have introduced policy endorsements specifying that they will not take the position that there is no coverage under their policies for settlements under Sections 11 and 12 of the ’33 Act. Not all of these endorsements were created equal, and they are all as yet untested in court, but at a minimum they ought to restrain most carriers whose policies have this endorsement from taking the position that a Section 11 or Section 12 settlement does not represent a covered loss under the policy.
Of course, not all policies have yet been adapted to this new approach, and there are still many claims pending in which the relevant policy does not have this new language. In connection with these existing policies and claims, it is important to note a couple of things.
First of all, even if a company’s Section 11 settlement is not covered under a D&O policy, the company’s expense incurred in defending against the Section 11 claim still ought to be covered.
Second, because the settlement of Section 11 claims against individual defendants (as opposed to the company itself) typically would not represent the return of ill-gotten gains, (since typically they would not have received any of the offering proceeds), a D&O policy ought to provide coverage for the settlement of a Section 11 claims against them, as well as their costs of defense, all other things being equal.
Very special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of the Eleventh Circuit opinion.
Auction Rate Settlements: Plaintiffs’ Bar Bummer?: As I noted in a recent post (here), one of the as yet unanswered questions surrounding the high-profile auction rate securities buybacks is what impact these settlements will have on the numerous auction rate securities class action lawsuits (about which generally, refer here).
In an August 18, 2008 Legal Week article entitled "Billions Not for the Plaintiffs Bar" (here), Michael Rivera and Erik Frias of the Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson law firm suggest that these settlements could have a "debilitating impact on the numerous class actions and other private lawsuits filed since the market seized up." The basis on which the authors reach this conclusion is that as a result of the buybacks and other settlement elements, "the losses of individual investors who might be plaintiffs will now be fully compensated, leaving little to no damages to pursue in court."
The authors suggest that as a result of the buybacks and other reimbursements incorporated into the settlements, the "bottom line" is that the claimants "will be made whole without assistance from the courts." As they put it, "government and industry have worked cooperatively to craft a solution to the auction-rate securities problem in such a way that private litigation will be largely unnecessary and unavailable." As a result, the authors suggest, there may now be "little opportunity for the plaintiffs bar to profit."
The authors may have a point, but I haven’t yet seen the voluntary dismissal of any of the pending auction rate securities lawsuits. The plaintiffs’ lawyers may not go quietly, and one angle I can imagine them trying to work relates to institutional investors, benefits under the various settlements are less defined and less comprehensive.
In any event, there are still a host of auction rate securities lawsuits that have been filed against banks and other institutions that have not yet reached a regulatory settlement. To be sure, it may only be a matter of time before the regulators set their sights on these others. In the interim, the existence of the shareholder lawsuits may represent one additional factor pressuring them to reach a regulatory settlement.
Finally, as I recently noted (here and here), though the settlements have started to mount, auction rate securities lawsuits continue to accumulate. There apparently are some members of the plaintiffs bar who continue to perceive an opportunity to profit from the auction rate debacle. It will certainly be some time before it is all sorted out.
In the past week, plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a raft of new subprime and credit crisis related securities lawsuits. The cases involve a wide variety of claimants and defendants, and a diverse array of legal theories. But while the lawsuits themselves are diverse, they do all evidence a common theme, which is that the subprime and credit-crisis related litigation wave continues to surge on.
According to the press release, “Defendants repeatedly reassured investors that AIG had successfully insulated itself from the recent turmoil in the housing and credit markets due to its superior risk management. In particular, defendants touted the security of [American International Group Financial Products] ‘super senior’ credit default swap portfolio, making numerous statements that this portfolio was secure and that AIG’s method for accounting for this portfolio accurately reflected its value.” The press release goes on to state that:
Investors began to learn the truth regarding AIG’s financial condition and the Company’s exposure to the mortgage market when, on February 11, 2008, the Company disclosed that its outside auditor had determined that there was “material weakness in its internal control” over the financial reporting and oversight relating specifically to its accounting for the CDS portfolio, and that the Company was revising the loss valuations it previously reported. Under the new valuations, losses on the CDS portfolio more than quadrupled – from the $1.4 billion reported on the CDS portfolio just weeks before to over $4.5 billion. Two weeks later, on February 28, 2008, AIG disclosed that the market valuations on the CDS portfolio would increase to $11.5 billion and revealed for the first time that the Company had notional exposure of $6.5 billion in liquidity puts written on collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) linked to the sub-prime mortgage market.
Finally, on May 8, 2008, the Company disclosed that market valuation losses on the CDS portfolio for the quarter climbed an additional $9.1 billion, for a cumulative loss of $20.6 billion, and that the Company was expecting actual losses on the portfolio to be about $2.4 billion. As a result of these disclosures, the price of AIG stock plunged from a Class Period high of $75.24 per share on June 5, 2008, to $38.37 per share on May 12, 2008, wiping out tens of billions of dollars in shareholder value and causing damage to the class.
A May 22, 2008 New York Times article describing the AIG lawsuit can be found here. A May 23, 2008 Law.com article about the suit can be found here.
Falcon Strategies/Citigroup: Another prominent lawsuit filed during the last week involved a hedge fund affiliated with Citigroup, which is also a defendant in the lawsuit. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of all persons “who have tendered or been asked to tender their shares” in Falcon Strategies Two LLC. According to the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ press release (here), Falcon was established as a “multi-strategy fixed income alternative seeking to provide investors with absolute returns, current income and portfolio diversification.” However, the complaint (which can be found here) alleges that Falcon was “not conservative” but “employed bond arbitrage, carried commercial debt obligations, and held asset-backed mortgage investments” that declined in value when the markets failed.
The complaint is somewhat unusual in that, which it alleges affirmative violations of the federal securities laws, it does not expressly seek damages, but rather seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin the tender offer until the defendants correct the “allegedly false and misleading” tender memorandum.
A separate lawsuit against a Falcon Strategies fund seeking damages and filed on behalf of Fifth Third Bank is detailed in a May 20, 2008 Wall Street Journal article (here). The Falcon Strategies fund had previously been the target of a separate securities class action lawsuit, but that lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed (refer here concerning this prior dismissed lawsuit).
The Falcon Strategies lawsuit is the second subprime or credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuit brought against a Citigroup-affiliated hedge fund. In early May 2008, investors brought a securities lawsuit against MAT Five LLC, Citigroup and other defendants alleging misrepresentations in MAT Five’s placement memorandum (Refer here for further background regarding the MAT Five lawsuit.)
Bank of America: In addition to these two lawsuits, investors also brought a securities class action lawsuit against Bank of America and related entities on behalf of all persons who purchased auction rate securities from the defendants during the period May 22, 2003 and February 23, 2008. A copy of the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ press release can be found here and a copy of the complaint can be found here.
I have written extensively about the auction rate securities lawsuits in prior posts, most recently here.
National City/Harbor Bank: Finally, in the fourth of last week’s flotilla of new subprime lawsuits, on May 20, 2008, the defendants removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio a lawsuit that had been filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County Ohio on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of National City Corporation in connection with National City’s December 1, 2006 acquisition of Harbor Bank. A copy of the complaint and removal petition can be found here.
The plaintiffs allege that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the merger contained material misrepresentations and omissions concerning National City’s lending practices, financial results and liquidity. In particular, the complaint alleges among other things that the Registration Statement failed to disclose that National City was “dangerously overexposed” to “risky and impaired CDOs” and that the company had “failed to properly account for its highly leveraged loans and mortgage securities.”
National City previously has been sued in a securities class action lawsuit (as I discussed in a prior post, here) filed on behalf of its shareholders. But this new lawsuit is filed on behalf of a distinct set of claimants and is based on a different set of alleged misrepresentations, and therefore in my view it represents a separate new lawsuit. As discussed below, I have accounted for it separately in my running tally of subprime-related securities lawsuits.
The lawsuits against National City on behalf of the former Harbor Bank shareholders alleges violations of Section 11 of the ’33 Act, but was filed initially in state court under the ’33 Act’s concurrent jurisdiction provisions. I have previously noted (refer here) the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ recent interest in attempting to pursue ’33 Act claims in state court. While defendants routinely remove these cases to federal court, the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ have has some success in having the cases remanded to state court (refer here). While one can only speculate on the plaintiffs’ interest in pursuing these cases in state court, it is nonetheless a very interesting development that possible represents a new trend in securities litigation prosecution.
One other interesting thing about the National City/Harbor Bank lawsuit is that in addition to National City itself and its current and former directors and officers, the complaint names as a defendant, National City’s auditors, Ernst & Young. There have been some lawsuits where the target company’s outside auditors have been named as defendants (for example, refer here regarding the amended complaint in the Countrywide subprime litigation where the companies’ auditors have been named). The bankruptcy examiner in the New Century case also suggested that there may be claims against the company’s auditors (refer here for a discussion of this report). However, so far, the auditors have been an infrequent target, likely because of the Stoneridge decision. The cases involving outside auditors have tended to be bases where an offering of securities is involved, and the auditors potentially have their own primary liability in connection with the offering.
Special thanks to Adam Savett of the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here) for a copy of the National City/Harbor Bank complaint.
Run the Numbers: With the addition of last week’s four new subprime and credit-related securities lawsuits, the current tally (refer here) of the subprime related securities lawsuits now stands at 85, of which 45 have been filed in 2008. With the addition of the new Bank of America lawsuit, the total number of auction rate securities lawsuits now stands at 17.
While the numerical specifics are important, the more important point is that the subprime and credit crisis-related litigation wave continues to churn on, the passage of time apparently doing nothing to diminish its intensity.
Speakers’ Corner: On Thursday May 29, 2008, I will be in New York speaking on a panel at IQPC’s 4th Securities Litigation Conference (brochure here). The panel on which I am participating is entitled “Discussing Recent Trends in Director & Officer Liability (D&O) Liability,” and includes as co-panelists Ray DeCarlo of AIG and Adam Savett of RiskMetrics.
A lawsuit filed late last week against First Marblehead Corporation underscores that the current lawsuit onslaught so often referred to as the “subprime” litigation wave is, and really has been for awhile, about so much more than just subprime. Although we are probably stuck with the “subprime” label as a shorthand way to describe these developments, the label encompasses a credit crisis that goes far beyond subprime lending.
First Marblehead is a Massachusetts-based company in the business of underwriting, packaging and securitizing student loans. Operating out of First Marblehead’s offices is a nonprofit organization called The Education Resources Institute (“TERI”) that provides guarantees of student loans that First Marblehead originates. On April 10, 2008, plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against First Marblehead and certain of its directors and officers. A copy of the plaintiffs’ counsel’s April 10 press release can be found here. A copy of the complaint can be found here.
The complaint alleges that during the class period of August 10, 2006 to April 7, 2008, the defendants made material misrepresentations “concerning the performance and quality of First Marblehead’s securitizations, its ability to perform additional securitizations, TERI’s ability to adequately guarantee [First Marblehead’s] student loans, and the Company’s financial results and its ongoing operations.” The complaint alleges that the company “misrepresented the level of default rates in its portfolio,” and “disregarded that TERI was underreserved and unable to adequately insure” the company’s loans. According to the complaint, TERI filed for bankruptcy protection on April 7, 2008, and the company’s stock plunged.
The First Marblehead lawsuit has nothing directly to do with subprime lending itself. Indeed, the occurrence of credit-related litigation essentially unrelated to subprime lending is really nothing new – First Marblehead is not even the student loan company to be sued in a securities class action lawsuit as part of the current litigation wave, given the lawsuit filed in January 2008 against SLM Corporation (“Sallie Mae”), about which refer here.
The student lending cases, like the auction rate securities litigation, are about the secondary and tertiary consequences in the credit marketplace following on the consequences first triggered by the subprime lending meltdown. But the spread of litigation to other types of credit and other kinds of companies underscores the dark possibilities for a crisis that began in the residential real estate lending sector to spread across the entire economy and activate a much broader array of litigation.
It is probably worth noting that the turmoil that has hit the student lending sector is not limited just to the student loan organizations themselves; companies that invested in student loan-backed securities are also experiencing financial and accounting difficulties as a result of their investment in these securities. For example, in a situation that encompasses both the student loan problems and the breakdown of the auction rate securities marketplace, Winnebago, in its March 20, 2008 fiscal second quarter earnings release (here), disclosed that it owned $54.2 million of auction rate securities collateralized by student loans. As a result of the auction rate securities market failure, the company deemed these securities as not currently liquid, and reclassified them on the company’s balance sheet as long-term investments. In its April 9, 2008 10-Q (here), the company recorded a temporary impairment charge to these securities of $3.4 million.
The fact that the student loan turmoil would affect a company as unrelated to the sector as Winnebago demonstrates how far afield the effects of the current crisis have and may yet spread. The essential point here is that as long as observers continue to describe and think about the current developments as merely subprime-related, they will not only fail to appreciate the extent of what has already happened, but also likely underestimate the possibilities of what may lie ahead.
Another Auction Rate Securities Lawsuit: And speaking of auction rate securities, on April 11, 2008, plaintiffs’ lawyers filed yet another lawsuit on behalf of auction rate securities investors against the companies that sold them the investments. As reflected in the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ press release (here), the latest lawsuit involves Oppenheimer Holdings. The Oppenheimer lawsuit is the twelfth of these auction rate securities lawsuits to be filed.
Run the Numbers: Like everyone else, I too am trapped by the now-established convention of referring to the current credit-related lawsuit onslaught as the “subprime” litigation wave, and as a reflection of that convention, I have added the First Marblehead and Oppenheimer lawsuits to my running tally of the “subprime”-related litigation, which can be accessed here. With the addition of these two new lawsuits, the current tally now stands at 70, of which 30 have been filed in 2008. As noted, 12 of these lawsuits involve class action auction rate securities litigation.
Subprime Litigation: The Grandaddy of Them All?: Although the crisis commonly referred to as the “subprime” meltdown is relatively recent, subprime loans have been around for a while. Indeed, problems with subprime loans are also nothing new. Even though the current wave of subprime-related litigation did not get started until February 2007, there were subprime-related lawsuits before that. These earlier lawsuits may provide some interesting perspective on the current round of litigation.
As described in an April 9, 2008 Wall Street Journal article entitled “Subprime Lender’s Failure Sparks Lawsuit against Wall Street Banks” (here), American Business Financial Services was in the subprime loan origination business. It funded its operations through the securitization of loans, but, in addition, it also raised operating cash by selling notes through direct sales to individual investors.
According to the allegations in subsequent litigation, ABFS underestimated the number of its loans that would be paid off early as a result of refinancing, reducing the company’s cash flow, and ultimately leading to the company’s bankruptcy. The noteholders, of which there may have been as many as 22,000, lost millions.
The Journal article describes the Pennsylvania state court lawsuit that the bankruptcy trustee has filed against the Wall Street banks that sponsored ABFS’s securitizations, as well as against the company’s former directors and officers. But this trustee lawsuit follows two earlier lawsuits, one brought by the company’s shareholders and one brought on behalf of the company’s noteholders.
The ABFS shareholder securities litigation, background about which can be found here, was initiated in January 2004, following the company’s disclosure that the Department of Justice was investigating the company’s loan transactions and securitization agreements. The plaintiff shareholders alleged that the company and certain of its directors and officers misrepresented the company’s financial condition by artificially altering the company’s loan default ratio, to understate the level of the company’s troubled loans. In a June 2, 2005 memorandum opinion and order (here), the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, on the ground that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege that the statements at issue materially misleading, nor did the plaintiffs’ allegations create a “strong inference” that the defendants acted with scienter.
The noteholder litigation, by contrast is going forward, albeit in a narrowed state. The background regarding the ABFS noteholder litigation can be found here. The noteholders also claimed that the defendants misrepresented the company’s financial condition. In two orders (here and here), the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the company’s loan delinquency rates, as well as the plaintiffs’ solicitation claims under Section 12. A much-narrowed case is going forward.
The course of these earlier lawsuits casts an interesting light on the current wave of lawsuits. The ABFS shareholder lawsuit dismissal is a reminder that even a lawsuit involving a bankrupt company that is the subject of a DoJ investigation, and in connection with which shareholders lost substantially all their investment, still has to survive the formidable pleading requirements to which securities lawsuits are subject. Even the noteholders, whose plight may be particularly sympathetic, have seen their petition for redress of grievances substantially narrowed.
The fate of these earlier lawsuits is a reminder that merely because lawsuits are filed, even lawsuits filed in the context of significant financial losses and regulatory investigations, does not mean that the lawsuits will succeed. It may be important to keep in mind as the current wave of lawsuits continues to accumulate that these lawsuits will face the same formidable pleading barriers as did the ABFS lawsuits, and some of these lawsuits, like the ABFS lawsuits, will not survive or will only survive on a greatly narrowed basis.
Tellabs in the Ninth Circuit: Readers interested in following the implementation of the Supreme Court’s Tellabs decision in the lower courts will want to review the April 10, 2008 decision (here) in the Skechers USA securities litigation, in which the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, in reliance on Tellabs.
However, the complications that may yet attend the implementation of the Tellabs decision in the lower courts is also suggested by the dissenting opinion in the Skechers appeal (here), in which the dissenting judge, applying the same Tellabs standard to the same facts, reached the opposite conclusion, finding that the district court’s dismissal ought to be reversed.
In the end however, while the Ninth Circuit’s majority and dissenting opinions in the Skechers case are interesting, they ultimately are of little value to the larger question of how Tellabs may be implemented in the lower courts, because the majority opinion is designated as “Not for Publication,” as a result of which it may not be cited. I have previously (here) decried the truly regrettable practice of courts designating opinions as not for publication or citation. Our entire system of jurisprudence relies on the usefulness of prior decisions to help resolve future cases, and it is fundamentally inconsistent with this arrangement for courts to try to remove decisions from this time-honored tradition and process.
Special thanks to a special friend of The D&O Diary for copies of the Ninth Circuit opinions.
Kevin M. LaCroix is an attorney and Executive Vice President, OakBridge Insurance Services, Beachwood,Ohio, a division of R-T Specialty, LLC. OakBridge is an insurance intermediary focused exclusively on management liability issues.More...
In its latest failed bank lawsuit, the FDIC, in its capacity as receiver of the failed County Bank of Merced, California, has filed a complaint against five former officer of the bank. The FDIC’s complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 27, 2012, just short of three years from the date of the bank’s closure. A copy of the FDIC’s complaint can be found here.
An inevitable part of the current wave of bank failures has been the FDIC’s filing of lawsuits against former directors and officers of the failed institutions. And though the FDIC’s initiation of this litigation has been gradual, the lawsuits have now 
As a result of the First Circuit’s January 20, 2011 opinion, the plaintiffs in the Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation mortgage-backed securities lawsuit have managed to revive a slender portion of their case, albeit on a rather precarious basis. The First Circuit otherwise affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the remainder of their case.
More banks have failed in Georgia than any other state as part of the current bank failure wave, but the FDIC had not yet filed a civil action against the former officials of a failed Georgia bank – that is, until now. On January 14, 2011, in what is the third FDIC lawsuit overall against former officials of a failed bank as part of the current round of bank failures, the FDIC filed a lawsuit against eight former officials of the failed Integrity Bank of Alpharetta, Georgia. The FDIC’s complaint can be found 
If the number of out of office messages sent back when I sent out new blog post email notifications during August are any indication, many readers have been away for some or all of the past few weeks. I hope you saved the little paper umbrella from the fruity drink that you and your spouse shared on the terrace of the outdoor café and that you are still finding sand in your tennis shoes.
In an unpublished August 18, 2008 per curiam opinion (
A lawsuit filed late last week against 
