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

Add E*Trade and SunTrust Bank to the growing list of companies that have been sued in purported class action lawsuits on behalf of auction rate securities investors against companies that sold them the instruments. The plaintiffs’ attorney’s April 2, 2008 press release regarding the E*Trade auction rate securities lawsuit can be found here, and the complaint can be found here. The plaintiffs’ attorneys’ April 2, 2008 press release regarding the SunTrust lawsuit can be found here and the SunTrust complaint can be found here. With the addition of these two new suits, there have now been a total of ten companies sued in these auction rate securities class action lawsuits.

The auction rate lawsuits are interesting. Clearly the plaintiffs’ lawyers think they are worth pursing. And if the intensity of the auction rate securities investors’ anger is an accurate gauge, then the plaintiffs’ lawyers filing of these lawsuits ultimately could be justified. As a result of prior posts on this blog (here and here) about auction rate securities, I have received numerous emails and inquiries from upset auction rate securities investors. Notwithstanding the investor anger, it is probably worth noting that so far as I can tell the leading plaintiffs’ securities firms are not (at least not yet) active in this space. Most of the auction rate securities class action lawsuits thus far have been filed by two plaintiffs’ firms (refer here and here).

The allegations in these auction rate securities class action lawsuits are largely identical. Essentially the plaintiffs contend that the defendants failed to disclose material facts about the instruments. In particular, the defendants are alleged to have failed to disclose that the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives, but rather that there were only liquid at the time of auction. More to the point, the complaints allege that the defendants failed to disclose that the auction rate securities would become illiquid as soon as the broker-dealers stopped maintaining the auction market.

In each of these class action lawsuits, the complaint names as defendants a specific financial institution and its broker-dealer affiliate. No individual defendants are named. While each complaint contains substantially identical generalized allegations of misrepresentations or omissions, the complaints contain virtually no allegations about specific statements the particular defendants companies are alleged to have made.

And even though the complaints purport to allege breaches of Section 10(b) of the ’34 Act, the complaints’ only basis for alleging scienter are generalized allegations of knowing falsity; there are no allegations of insider trading, and no particularized factual allegations supporting the general allegations of knowing falsity. The complaints similarly depend on the failure of the auction rate market itself as satisfying the loss causation requirement, rather than referring to any alleged curative disclosures or anything else in particular about the specific securities in which the class members invested.

The defendants undoubtedly will argue that these generalized allegations are insufficient to meet the threshold pleading requirements, in reliance in particular on Tellabs and Dura Pharmaceuticals. But while the defendants may seek to have the actions dismissed, the plaintiffs’ lawyers clearly intend to keep filing these actions.

The lawsuits potentially may also raise some interesting D & O liability insurance coverage issues. Because the complaints do not name any individuals as defendants, the sole potential coverage under the typical D & O policy that these claims might trigger is the so-called “entity coverage” found in most policies. In most public company D & O policies, the entity coverage is strictly limited to “securities claims.” While the auction rate securities lawsuits purport to raise claims under the securities laws, these allegations may or may not trigger the potentially applicable entity coverage, depending on how the term “securities claim” is defined in the applicable policy.

There are two general variants of the “securities claim” definition. One variant defines the term “securities claim” by reference to the securities laws themselves, including within the definition claims that assert breaches of federal or state securities laws or their equivalent. The other definitional variation defines “securities claim” by reference to the claimants and securities allegation with respect to which would be recognized as a securities claim. For example, this latter category might limit a “securities claim” to claims brought by holders of the company’s securities, or alternatively, might limit a securities claim to alleged breaches in connection with trading of the company’s own securities.

Clearly this definitional distinction could make a difference in connection with these recently filed auction rate securities lawsuits, as these claims might assert a “securities claim” and trigger the entity coverage in policies that use the former variants, but may or may not trigger the entity coverage in the policies that have the latter variant.

It is probably also worth noting that a number of the companies (for example, E*Trade) that have been sued in these auction rate securities class actions have also separately been sued in securities class action lawsuits by the companies’ own shareholders. These companies’ available insurance coverage may be under significant pressure already.

With the accumulation of these lawsuits, whose numbers are likely to continue to grow, it may well be time for these lawsuits to be broken out into their own separate statistical category, much as the IPO laddering cases were when the were filed in 2001. The auction rate securities lawsuits clearly represent a litigation category distinct from the more typical securities class action brought by public company shareholders.

But with the addition of the two latest lawsuits, the total number of subprime related lawsuits, as reflected on my running subprime lawsuit tally (which may be accessed here), now stands at 64, of which 26 have been filed in 2008. As noted above ten of these 64 lawsuits represent lawsuits brought by auction rate securities investors. Two of the 64 were brought by asset-backed securities investors against the investment banks who created the instruments. Two of the 64 were brought by mutual fund investors against the fund companies and fund managers. The remaining lawsuits were brought by public company shareholders.

Subprime Derivative Lawsuits: In addition to securities lawsuits, some shareholders have also filed subprime-related shareholders’ derivative lawsuits against company management alleging breach of fiduciary duty and other legal breaches. The latest of these subprime-related derivative lawsuits was filed on April 1, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against Municipal Mortgage & Equity (“Muni Mae”) , as nominal defendant, and certain of its directors and officers (complaint here). Muni Mae has previously been sued in a subprime-related securities lawsuit (refer here).

The derivative suit against Muni Mae joins other subprime-related derivative lawsuits that previously have been filed against, among others, Countrywide, American International Group, Regions Financial, and Bear Stearns. I have not been separately tracking the subprime-related derivative lawsuits, basically because I failed to anticipate that shareholders would file as many subprime-related derivative actions as they have. In response to readers’ inquiries, I will now endeavor to track the subprime-related derivative suits.

Unfortunately, because I am coming at this task belatedly, I may fail to account for derivative lawsuits that were filed previously and of which I am unaware. I would be grateful if readers would let me know of any pending subprime-related derivative lawsuits of which they are aware, so that I can add them to my tally and the list will be as complete as possible.

Subprime Litigation Overview: The field of subprime-related litigation has continued to grow and expand, to the point where it is difficult to get an organized sense of the range of issues and litigants involved. An April 1, 2008 memorandum from the Gibson Dunn law firm entitled “Subprime-Related Securities Litigation: Where Do We Go From Here?” (here) provides a top-level overview of current exposures facing companies involved in subprime-related businesses. The paper identifies early trends and key defenses, takes a brief look at likely D & O insurance issues, and describes the factors that are likely to affect the likely future direction of this litigation.

A Canadian Backdating Lawsuit: Though the backdating scandal now seems like ancient history, it seems that the lawsuits are still continuing to come in, although the most recent instance involves a Canadian company sued in a Canadian court.

According to news reports (here), a shareholder of Savanna Energy Services Corp. has filed an action in Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench against eleven current or former directors and officers of the company, alleging that the defendants manipulated the company’s stock options in order to profit personally. The lawsuit seeks damages equal to the defendants’ ill-gotten gains and a ban on issuing options to the company’s executives. The plaintiffs’ complaint relies on an affidavit from Eric Lie, the University of Iowa professor whose research initially triggered the options backdating scandal. Lie’s affidavit reports “a high statistical probability” that individuals at Savanna backdated options between 2004 and 2007.

Because Savanna is a Canadian company whose shares trade only on the Toronto Stock Exchange and because it has been sued in Canadian court under Canadian law, I have not tried to shoehorn the case into my running tally of options backdating lawsuits (which may be accessed here). The Savanna lawsuit may represent its own unique category of one.

Delaware Corporate Law Update: Francis Pileggi has posted on his Delaware Corporate and Commerical Litigation Blog (here) an interesting series of posts (here, here and here) reporting on the proceedings at Tulane University's Corporate Law Institute, which took place this past week. The posts include a number of interesting commentaries from members of the Delaware judiciary. Francis's post (here) about Delaware law regarding the sale of companies is particularly noteworthy and interesting, particularly Vice Chancellor Strine's remarks about the duties of boards of companies in the process of the sale of a company.

Death by Blogging?: Readers who may not appreciate how stressful it can be to maintain a blog may want to review the April 6, 2008 New York Times article entitled “In Web World of 24/7 Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop” (here), which surveys the toll that blogging is taking on some authors.

While no one here at The D & O Diary seems to be in any immediate danger, maintaining the blog is unquestionably stressful. The authors described in the Times article are (or rather, were) at least getting paid for their troubles, whereas The D & O Diary lacks even that consolation. Our blogging efforts defy Samuel Johnson’s sage words that “No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money” -- words that we frequently contemplate to our distress. Yet on we blog, as if by compulsion. A blog is indeed a harsh mistress.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

As courts have wrestled with the issue whether certain foreign shareholders can act as lead plaintiffs, or indeed can even be included in the plaintiff shareholder class, they have faced an ever-broader array of questions and challenges. The kinds of issues that foreign shareholder litigants present are illustrated in the February 13, 2008 lead plaintiff selection order (here) of Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the BigBand Networks securities class action lawsuit. Refer here for background regarding the case.

BigBand, which is based on California, went public on March 14, 2007 (refer here). Its shares trade on Nasdaq. On September 27, 2007, the company announced (here) a revised revenue estimate for the third quarter of 2007. The company’s share price declined and several shareholders filed securities class action lawsuits against the company and certain of its officers and directors as well as the IPO offering underwriters and others.

The two leading contenders for the lead plaintiff role were Gwyn Jones, “a British citizen who resides in the Republic of Cyprus,” and Sphera Fund, an Israeli-based institutional hedge fund investor. The two would-be lead plaintiffs agreed that Jones has the largest financial interest in the case, having sustained losses of $438,617, whereas Sphera sustained losses of $374,889. Sphera nevertheless asserted three grounds on upon which it sought to rebut the presumption that Jones, with the largest financial interest in the  case, was the most adequate plaintiff.

Sphera first argued that in enacting the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Congress sought to encourage institutional investors to serve as the lead plaintiff in securities class action lawsuits. Judge Armstrong found however that “a plaintiff’s mere status as an institutional investor does not provide any presumption that the institutional plaintiff is a more adequate plaintiff than an individual investor with a larger financial interest.” Judge Armstrong went on to note that Congress could have created a per se presumption in favor of institutional plaintiffs but did not do so.

Sphera next sought to overcome the presumption that Jones was the most adequate plaintiff by arguing that Jones was subject to a “unique defense.” Sphera argued that the judgment of the U.S. court in a class action securities lawsuit might not be given preclusive effect in Cyprus and that fact was sufficient to overcome the presumption. In making this argument, Sphera drew upon prior holdings in the Vivendi and GlaxoSmithKline cases that the most adequate plaintiff presumption can be rebutted where the presumptive lead plaintiff’s country may not give res judicata effect to a U.S. court’s class action judgment. (Refer here for my prior discussion of the GlaxoSmithKline case, in which the court rejected the lead plaintiff petition of a German investor with the most significant financial interest out of concern that a German court might not enforce the U.S. court’s judgment in the case.)

Sphera’s attempt to challenge Jones broke down on its attempt to substantiate its characterizations of Cypriot law. Judge Armstrong held that “the arguments and evidence presented …are a totally inadequate basis for this Court to form any opinion as to whether Cypriot courts would give binding effects to this Court’s judgments.” Judge Armstrong observed regarding Sphera’s attempt to establish the relevant Cypriot law that

Sphera Fund does not even so much as provide an authenticated version of the Cypriot Civil Procedure Rules, but instead provides only a link to a webpage that is primarily in Greek and appears to contain translations of various Cypriot laws….Moreover, the versions of the rules on this website appear to use idiomatic phraseology that is literally Greek to this Court….The Court therefore has no basis on which to render an informed opinion on this question.

Judge Armstrong went on to note that “on the evidence before this Court,” Sphera’s concern about the enforceability of the U.S. court’s judgment in Cypriot courts “applies equally to Sphera Fund, an Israeli entity as to Jones.” Sphera “provided no specific argument that an Israeli court would give preclusive effect to a securities class action judgment such as may be rendered in this case.” Although relegated to a footnote, a further observation of the court seems particularly relevant to the entire analysis; that is, the court notes that the country of Jones’ citizenship (U.K.) rather than the country of his residence (Cyprus) may be the more relevant consideration, and prior courts have found that U.S. judgments may be preclusive in U.K. courts.

Finally, Sphera’s third argument against the presumption that Jones is the most adequate plaintiff is that Jones is in any event unqualified to serve as lead plaintiff. Sphera’s arguments in this regard are, the court notes, “simply ad hominem attacks on Jones,” which the court dismisses as “sophomoric.”

While there is something more than slightly comical about Sphera’s attempt to present arguments based on Cypriot law in reliance on a partially translated webpage, the spectacle of a court making significant procedural determinations that potentially could affect the interests of absent class members based this kind of process is disheartening. Sphera's attempt to introduce Cypriot law may have been particularly clumsy, but this kind of spectacle is the almost inevitable absurd extreme to which the courts have been led based on the process of U.S. courts making assessments of foreign laws and of the likelihood that foreign courts would honor U.S. courts’ judgments in class action lawsuits.

Even with respect to jurisdictions such as the U.K. where the law is relatively accessible, the U.S. courts are nevertheless making assumptions that may or may not be valid about what a court in another jurisdiction might do in applying its own laws. And for countries where English translations of relevant legal provisions are unavailable, the entire exercise can simply break down. The inevitably scattershot results are underscored in the BigBand case when the court emphasized that it could not determine one way or another whether the judgment would be enforced in Cyprus or Israel but it was nevertheless proceeding ahead. It is hardly reassuring that the Court more or less acknowledged that it was making its decision in express recognition that it did not know what the relevant law is.

Moreover, with the increasing globalization of investor activity, the prospects for more instances of this kind of exercise, both at the lead plaintiff and at the class certification stage, seems likely. U.S. courts will be increasingly plagued by requirements to discern and make assessments upon the laws of a bewildering array of countries, and make decisions about the substantive rights of aggrieved absent potential class members based on assessments about what a foreign court might do under its law.  

Nor is the inaccessibility of some jurisdictions’ laws the only practical issue involved. For example, in the class certification context, and as Adam Savett pointed out on his Securities Litigation Watch blog, the practical alternative for foreign investors precluded from the shareholder class is for those precluded investors to file individual actions, which is precisely what foreign investors precluded from the Vivendi class have done, as Savett documents here.

The complications arising from foreign shareholder litigants’ involvement in U.S. securities actions defy easy solutions, but it seems increasingly apparent that these issues will continue to arise as foreign investors demonstrate their interest in accessing U.S. courts to seek available remedies under U.S. securities laws. While there are no easy solutions, the current ad hoc case by case method, informed only by U.S. courts’ rough and ready assessments of what the laws of other jurisdictions provide and how those jurisdictions’ courts might apply those laws to a U.S. class action judgment, seems poorly calculated to serve the best interests of absent, aggrieved class members.  

Speakers’ Corner: On March 6, 2008, I will be speaking at the Mealey’s Subprime-Backed Securities Litigation Conference in New York. I am honored to be included with a very illustrious group of speakers, who will be addressing the critical issues in a very comprehensive way. The program is being chaired by David Grais of Grais & Ellsworth. The entire program agenda and other conference information can be found here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On February 7, 2007, New Century Financial Corp. became the first company to be named in subprime-related securities lawsuit. On January 31, 2008, just short of one year later, Judge Dean Pregerson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, but without prejudice and with leave to amend. For background on the lawsuit, refer here. For a copy of the January 31 opinion, refer here.

The plaintiff shareholders had initiated the complaint following the company’s February 7, 2007 announcement (here) that it would be restating its financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2006, because of the company’s need to readjust the company’s allowance for “the potential repurchase of loans resulting from early-payment defaults by the underlying borrowers.” The company said that the reserve did not allow for the discounted price the company sustained upon its disposition of repurchased loans. The company’s press release also said that

the company’s methodology for estimating the volume of repurchase claims to be included in the repurchase reserve calculations did not properly consider, in each of the three quarters of 2006, the growing volume of repurchase claims outstanding.

On April 2, 2007, the company announced (here) that it had filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S Bankruptcy Code. The company’s shares ultimately declined more than 97% percent.

On September 14, 2007, the lead plaintiff in the subprime-related securities lawsuit pending against New Century, the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, filed a consolidated class action complaint. The consolidated complaint names as defendants the company and certain of its directors and officers; the company’s auditor, KPMG, and investment banks that underwrote the company’s June 2005 and August 2006 preferred stock offerings. The consolidated complaint raises allegations against all defendants under Section 11 of the ’33 Act, and against the company and its directors and officers under Section 10 of the ’34 Act.

In assessing the plaintiffs’ allegations, Judge Pregerson said that the complaint “lacks clarity in articulating the grounds for its claims.” The complaint “does not clearly identify the allegedly false statements or which of the factual allegations support and inference that particular statements are false or misleading.” The court attributed these shortcomings to the “lack of organization and somewhat unclear presentation of the allegations.” As a result, Judge Pregerson said, he “has difficulty determining whether plaintiffs have stated a claim.”

Judge Pregerson granted the motions to dismiss but allowed the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, by which the plaintiffs may attempt to “resolve deficiencies in the complaint by simple reorganization, revision and clarification of the currently long and at times meandering set of allegations.” The court instructed the plaintiffs that for each of the supposedly false or misleading statements, “the Complaint should identify some facts suggesting that the statement is false or misleading.” The court also directed the plaintiffs to attach to their amended complaint a chart specifying each allegedly false or misleading statement, the supporting factual allegations and the plaintiffs’ conclusion.

Like the prior dismissal of the subprime-related securities lawsuits involving IndyMac (about which refer here), the dismissal in the New Century case is without prejudice. Judge Pregerson’s opinion in the New Century case does not reach the merits, but nevertheless shows great impatience with the plaintiffs’ scattershot pleading approach. (“The Court,” Judge Pregerson observed in a footnote, “should not have to comb through the complaint to identify reasonable inferences from factual allegations to the legal conclusions.”) The plaintiffs have until February 25, 2008 to file an amended complaint. The court has scheduled argument on the updated motions to dismiss on April 21, 2008.

And so the motion to dismiss on the first-filed subprime securities lawsuit might be ready to be decided some 15 months (or more) after the complaint was initially filed. Obviously, at this rate it will take many years before the many subprime related cases have finally ground their way through the system, and before the full impact of the still evolving subprime crisis can be fully assessed.

But it is interesting to reflect, upon review of the events leading up to the New Century lawsuit, and as the subprime meltdown continues to unfold, that as early as the first quarter of 2006, New Century was already experiencing unanticipated loan repurchase requirements resulting from early-payment defaults on subprime loans. The subprime meltdown may seem like a sudden crisis, but has actually already been years in the making and will be even longer in the unfolding. Clearly, the wheels of finance, like the wheels of the law, grind exceeding slow but exceeding fine.

Hat tip to the Class Action Defense Blog (here) for the link to the January 31, 2008 opinion in the New Century case.

Loaded for Bear: The February 15, 2008 Wall Street Journal had an interesting article entitled “Bear Probe May Center on Investor Call” (here) discussing how federal prosecutors’ investigating the collapse of two Bear Stearns hedge funds managed by Ralph Cioffi are examining Cioffi’s statements in an April 25, 2007 conference call with hedge fund investors. Readers interested in this investigation will want to refer back to the December 17, 2007 Business Week article entitled “The Bear Flu: How it Spread” (here) for further background on the circumstances under investigation.

According to the Business Week article, in the April 25 call, Cioffi made statements about a Bear Stearns branded CDO mechanism that Cioffi also managed called “Klio funding.” This mechanism sold commercial paper and other short term debt to money market funds to allow the CDO to buy other higher yielding, longer-term securities. The money market funds were willing to invest because Citigroup agreed to refund their initial stake plays interest (in a so-called “liquidity put”). Citigroup, in turn, drew fees and also was able to sell the Klios mortgage-backed securities of its own.

According to Business Week, the Klio structure spread rapidly as other hedge funds, CDO managers and bankers “followed Cioffi’s lead.” Between 2004 and 2007, Wall Street raised $100 billion through these types of CDOs, “essentially creating a whole new way for industry to finance risky subprime loans.” The article goes on to detail how the Klios offered the Bear Stearns hedge funds a “ready, in-house trading partner,” and that in many months “the Cioffi-managed Klios traded only with the Cioffi-managed Bear funds.” The daisy chain ended in disaster when the subprime loans underlying these investments began to deteriorate. Much of the subprime-related writedowns amongst the investment banks are related to the liquidity puts they provided.

The Journal article reports that in the April 25 call, one participant wondered whether the packaged mortgage securities in the Bear hedge funds were tied to subprime assets. Cioffi reportedly responded that he didn’t have time to teach “CDO 101” or answer basic questions about the securities. It is probably worth observing that the April 25 call came several weeks after New Century had (as noted above) filed for bankruptcy as a result of deteriorating subprime mortgages that were already a problem more than a year before that. The questioner’s inquiry in the April 25 call about subprime was not, as Cioffi’s belittling response suggests, the result of naïveté, but rather well-grounded concern.

Cioffi’s response, although lacking the vulgarity, calls to mind Jeffrey Skilling’s now infamous conference call statement in the fateful final months of Enron. In response to an analyst’s comment that Enron was the only company that releases its earnings statement without a balance sheet, Skilling said “Well, thank you very much, we appreciate that … asshole.” (Refer here for the details about Skilling and the infamous call.)

The comparison may or may not be fair. But every scandal needs a villain, and fair or not, it appears at least based on the news coverage concerning the collapse of the two Bear Stearns hedge funds, that the casting is now complete. It appears that during the current Act of the subprime drama that the role of villain is to be played by Ralph Cioffi, and as with those called to play the villains in prior dramas, his arrogance will be one of the things held against him.

The Backdating Disposition List, Updated: Regular readers know that I have been maintaining a list (accessed here) reflecting all backdating lawsuit dismissals, denials and settlements. I have recently updated the list to add three additional dismissals in options backdating-related derivative lawsuits, two of which are late additions of dismissals I missed last fall. The three dismissals are as follows:

Openwave: On February 12, 2008, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted (here) the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ options backdating related derivative suit, with leave to amend. The court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ initial complaint, with leave to amend.The February 12 decision related to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The court will allow the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend.

Westwood One: According to the company’s November 1, 2007 filing in Form 10-Q (here), on August 3, 2007, the N.Y. Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ options backdating-related shareholders’ derivative suit. On September 20, 2007, the plaintiffs’ appealed the court’s dismissal and moved for “renewal” under relevant statutes. The appeal remains pending.

Clorox: According to the company’s November 1, 2007 filing on Form 10-Q (here), on October 27, 2007, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their options backdating-related derivative lawsuit in response to the recommendation of the company’s Board’s Audit Committee’s recommendation to the Board that the Board reject the plaintiffs’ suit demand, on the grounds that the suit was not in the best interests of the company.

Special thanks to Adam Savett of the Securities Litigation Watch blog for the information regarding the Westwood One and Clorox dismissals.

Headline of the Week: Still unexplained: why would anyone want TWO dead dogs?: From the February 16, 2007 Financial Times: “Ground-Dog Day as Woman Pays $50,000 to Clone Dead Pitbull” (here).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over the past several weeks, several industry observers and analysts have tried to put a number on the insurance industry's aggregate subprime-related loss exposure. At one end, Bear Stearns on January 24, 2008 estimated the industry's exposure at $8-9 billion (refer here). By contrast, on February 8, 2008, Lehman Brothers estimated (here) that the insurance industry's losses might range up to $3 billion, and on February 6, 2008, Advisen announced (here) that it will be releasing a report estimating that the industry's ultimate losses at $3.6 billion.

I don't envy these experts whose job it is to try to quantify something as big, amorphous and evolving as the subprime-related litigation wave. Nor do I profess to have any particular insight into whose estimate is more accurate or what the ultimate number will be. I do have some observations about some considerations that are or should be being taken into account in making these kinds of estimates, in light of the circumstances surrounding the evolving subprime meltdown. (I should add that in making these observations, I have not had the benefit of reading the entire Advisen report, which as of this writing is not yet available; I have only had an opportunity to review the press release summary.)

In general, I think the various estimates have correctly noted that a potentially large portion of the amounts to be paid in settlements or judgments in the subprime litigation may not represent insured loss. In particular, the observers have correctly noted that many of the largest commercial and investment banks that are involved in the subprime-related litigation carry very large self-insured retentions and also often carry only Side A insurance programs (covering only nonindemnifiable loss, unlikely to occur here for these entities) or in some cases no insurance at all for certain exposures. These various observers have made a number of other valid observations concerning other factors that could restrict the impact of subprime losses for D & O insurers.

But at the same time, it seems to me that there are a number of other considerations that these observers have undervalued or even overlooked in assessing the possible impact of the subprime meltdown on insurers.

First and foremost, I think it is important to stress that we are only at the very earliest stages of the emergence of the subprime-related litigation. To be sure, there are (as documented here) already 43 subprime-related class action lawsuits, as well as nine subprime-related ERISA lawsuits, but before all is said and done, there are going to be many, many more of these and other kinds of lawsuits. We have not even completed the first round of subprime loss truth-telling (refer here), and it is probable that there will be even further deterioration in the mortgages underlying the subprime-backed assets as homeowners find it easier to walk away that to continue to pay down debt on a house that is declining in value (about which refer here).

As Couglin Stoia attorney Sam Rudman observed at last week's PLUS D & O Symposium, there are likely to be more securities class action lawsuits in 2008 than any year since the passage of the PSLRA (Rudman is himself already involved as plaintiffs' counsel on many of the subprime-related lawsuits).The subprime-related litigation wave is likely to continue to emerge well into 2009 and possibly beyond (just as the options backdating litigation wave continues to emerge). The possible extent of this future litigation threat may be discerned from the recent litigation commenced against the Cadawalader firm (about which refer here), in which the allegations relate to commercial mortgage securitization documents the firm prepared in 1997. In other words, any dollar estimate of the possible subprime-related insurance losses should be accompanied by a healthy appreciation of how little of the ultimate amount of subprime-related litigation we can currently even see. Since we still don't know how big of an event this ultimately will be, and because it is likely to be years before we have clear idea, any attempt at quantification should carry some very substantial caveats.

Second, many of these estimates seem to presume that the insurance industry's subprime-related losses will be limited to the financial institutions sector. I do not think this is a conservative assumption. To the contrary, I think it should be assumed that the subprime-related litigation wave will both spread beyond subprime and beyond the financial sector (as I discuss at greater length here). The recent securities class action lawsuits against student loan company SLM Corporation (about which refer here) and Levitt Homes (about which refer here) underscore that the claims have already spread. Bristol Myers Squibb's recent $275 million write-down for subprime-related investment losses (refer here) further highlights that the credit crisis is no longer just about the financial sector. The possibility of further credit-related losses in many sectors outside the financial sector, and for ensuing claims, at this point seems likely -- or at least that would appear to be the conservative assumption.

Third, much of the analysis of the insurance industry's exposure has been concentrated largely (although, it must be recognized, not exclusively) on potential losses for D & O insurers. To be sure, the growing number of subprime-related securities class action lawsuits represents a very substantial threat to the D & O insurance industry. But the potential for insured losses in coverage lines outside of D & O could also be very substantial. By way of illustration, State Street's recent $618 million charge for anticipated subprime-related litigation expenses was in connection with lawsuits that do not (as discussed in my recent post, here) appear to implicate D & O coverage, but that could present significant fiduciary liability or even investment management E & O losses.

By the same token, the recently revised complaint in the subprime-related securities litigation involving Countrywide (about which refer here) added accountant liability claims, as well as claims against Countrywide's offering underwriters. Other professionals undoubtedly will find themselves caught up in subprime related litigation, including, for example, lawyers; hedge fund and pension fund managers; mortgage brokers; appraisers and surveyors; real estate brokers; and insurance agents, among many others. The cumulative losses from claims against other professionals could be very substantial, and at this early stage particularly difficult to prognosticate.

Even with respect to the analysts' breakdown of the likely D & O losses, the breadth of the current and likely future claims may or may not be being fully taken into account. That is, while it is true that some of the lawsuits against the largest financial institutions may not, because of the way that these entities structure their insurance, involve the prospect for insured losses, most of the current and likely future subprime litigation defendants do not have these types of insurance arrangements. As the claims spread to secondary players and targets in the hinterlands (about which refer here), the claims are hitting defendants that have more traditional insurance structures. Those (far more numerous) claims may involved a greater percentage of insured losses than (the relatively few claims, as a percentage matter) against the largest banks and financial institutions.

Fourth, I am well aware that one of the issues with which these analysts have had to grapple is the need to try and put the subprime meltdown into context. The challenge is not just to say how it compares, for example, to the S & L crisis or the bursting of the dotcom bubble, but also to come up with a figure for those prior events in order to compare the current subprime crisis. I don't have data for those prior events, but I do know that the still unfolding options backdating scandal may present a useful comparison. As I have detailed in another post today, the options backdating losses, on the few cases that have been resolved so far, already represent in aggregate some very impressive numbers. There are many more options backdating cases yet to be resolved. The total options backdating related losses are likely to by very substantial. Given that just about everyone assumes that the subprime related crisis represents an even greater threat to insurers than the options backdating scandal, the implication is that the subprime related losses could be very significant indeed.

Fifth, whatever else might be said, nothing meaningful about the extent of the subprime threat can be derived from the D & O insurers' current marketplace behavior. My comment here relates specifically to the comment in the Lehman Brothers report linked above that "if insurers were concerned about suffering multi-billion dollar subprime D & O losses that could spread outside financial institutions sector, the market would tighten significantly." If the D & O industry had a long track record of skillfully adjusting its prices to changing exposures, this remark might have greater validity. Unfortunately, the industry's consistent history suggests that the industry is only capable of disciplining itself when losses become so painful that it is forced to change its ways. The current D & O pricing environment is a reflection only of the amount of available capacity, not of any calibration to emerging exposures. The marketplace will remain competitive until cumulating losses force the changes of necessity, and then any changes would be abrupt and disruptive -- as they have always been in the past.

Sixth, as most of the analysts have noted, the defense expense associated with the subprime cases in and of itself could be staggering. As an example of how expensive these cases can be, Apollo Group recently reported (here) that it had spent $25 million dollars taking the securities lawsuit pending against the company through trial. Because of the legal and factual complexity surrounding the subprime cases, they could be extremely costly to defend. Much of the associated defense expense, other than for the large investment bank defendants, is likely to be covered loss. For each of the securities cases, the defense expenses are likely to be many millions of dollars, and, for the cases in the aggregate (including those already filed and those yet to be filed), to be many hundreds (and possibly thousands) of millions of dollars. To these costs must be added the costs of defending the claims raised against other professionals.

Finally, it would be unfortunate if the subprime hype were to obscure the fact that the subprime-related litigation is only one of several very important current developments affecting D & O insurers' exposure. As I have noted elsewhere (refer here) securities litigation levels would be elevated compared to the prior two years' activity levels even without the subprime-related litigation. The Securities Litigation Watch blog recently noted (here) that January 2008 securities activity remained at elevated levels, only in part because of the subprime related litigation. None of this could be discerned from D & O insurers' current conduct. It has been ever thus.

Blog Warning: This week I hope to be making some long needed adjustments to The D & O Diary. While these changes are taking place, I will not be adding any new blog posts (although the current posts will remain available). These adjustments should result in several improvments to The D & O Diary. I will report further on the adjustments once they have been completed.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a prior post (here), I noted that the subprime meltdown story is no longer just about subprime, and that the crisis spreading to other types of credit could stretch the subprime litigation wave to areas outside of subprime. The lawsuit filed today against SLM Corporation (better known as "Sallie Mae") officially brought the subprime litigation wave to the student lending arena.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 3, 2008, State Street Corporation announced (here) that for the fourth quarter of 2007, it will be establishing a reserve of $618 million, on a pre-tax basis, "to address legal exposure and other costs associated with the underperformance of ... fixed-income strategies managed by... the company's investment management arm." The net charge to the company, "after taking into account the tax effect of the reserve and associated lower incentive compensation cost" will be $279 million.

In its January 3 press release, the company did not identify the specific litigation to which the reserve will relate; rather, the company referenced only "customer concerns as to whether the execution of [the fixed-income strategies] was consistent with the customers' investment intent." The press release goes on to state that the strategies "were adversely impacted by exposure to, and the lack of liquidity in, subprime mortgage markets."

A January 4, 2007 New York Times article entitled "State Street Corp. Is Sued Over Pension Losses" (here) states that State Street decided to create the reserve "after five clients sued it, claiming they had lost tens of millions of dollars in State Street funds they were told would be invested in risk-free debt like Treasuries." The Times article briefly identifies four of the claimants, but adds that "it was unclear who brought the fifth suit."

Because of the possibility that, as stated in the Times article, that State Street's litigation and related reserve "highlight the legal challenges that lie ahead for financial firms," it would appear to be worthwhile to review here the five State Street lawsuits. The value of this exercise is underscored by the perception (which I share) voiced by one commentator quoted in the Times article that "there could be many, many more" lawsuits like those against State Street.

The first of the five lawsuits was brought on October 1, 2007 by Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company. (I previously posted about the Prudential lawsuit here.) A copy of the Prudential complaint can be found here. According to Prudential Financial's October 1, 2007 filing on Form 8-K (here), the action "seeks, among other relief, restitution of certain losses attributable to certain investment funds" sold by State Street's investment management arm, and alleges that State Street "failed to exercise prudent investment management." The specific legal basis of Prudential's claim is that State Street and its investment arm violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The complaint alleges that the defendants "radically altered" the investment strategies of two bond funds, the Intermediate Bond Fund and the Government Credit Bond Fund. The complaint alleges that the funds "took undisclosed, highly leveraged positions in mortgage-related financial derivatives" and thereby "exposed" the funds to "an inappropriate level of risk" that during the summer of 2007 "produced catastrophic results." The complaint further alleges that as these events unfolded the defendants provided "untimely, incomplete and misleading information."

The Prudential complaint alleges that the defendants caused losses of "roughly $80 million" to assets held by about 165 retirement plans for which Prudential is responsible, affecting approximately 28,000 plan participants. The complaint seeks restitution and compensation for the investor losses (which Prudential has, according to an October 2, 2007 Wall Street Journal article, here, already reimbursed). The complaint also seeks recovery of fees and other amounts the defendants' received, as well as recovery of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees.

Of the five lawsuits against State Street in connection with which the company established its litigation reserve, three others (in addition to the Prudential lawsuit) allege violations of ERISA. The first of these three other ERISA lawsuits was brought on October 17, 2007 by Unisystems and the trustee of the Unisystems Employees' Profit Sharing Plan. A copy of the Unisystems amended complaint can be found here. (My prior post about the Unisystems complaint can be found here.)

The second of the three other ERISA lawsuits was brought on October 24, 2007 by the Composite Pension Trust of Nashua Corporation. A copy of the Nashua complaint can be found here.

The third of the three other ERISA lawsuits (and the fourth of the five total lawsuits brought against State Street) was brought on October 31, 2007 by the plan administrator and the trustee of the Employees' Savings and Profit Sharing Plan of the Andover Companies. A copy of the amended Andover Complaint can be found here.

The fifth of the five lawsuits against State Street (which is also the lawsuit which the Times was unable to identify) was brought on November 5, 2007 in Harris County, Texas, District Court by Memorial Hermann Healthcare System. On December 3, 2007, the defendants removed the Memorial Hermann complaint to the Southern District of Texas. A copy of the removal petition, to which the initial state court complaint is attached, can be found here. Unlike the four other State Street lawsuits, the Memorial Hermann complaint does not allege a violation of ERISA. Instead, the complaint asserts against the State Street defendants a variety of state law claims, including breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

The Memorial Hermann complaint essentially alleges that the State Street defendants breached an "Agreement of Trust" to serve as trustee of nearly $91 million in the plaintiff's assets. The assets allegedly were invested in the State Street Limited Duration Bond Fund, which the complaint alleges lost 37 percent of its value during three weeks in August 2007, and 42 percent of its value for the 2007 year. The losses allegedly were the result of "unjustified investments in mortgage securities without diversification and using derivatives, all contrary to the stated Investment Objectives and representations."

UPDATE: In a later post, I discuss (here) a sixth lawsuit that has been filed against State Street.

The State Street lawsuits are significant in and of themselves, but also for what they might foreshadow. As I noted above, these lawsuits may well represent the kinds of legal problems that other financial services companies may face, particularly as the mortgages backing many of these investment funds and investment securities continue to detiorate.

There are a number of other important implications from the State Street lawsuits. The first relates to the identity of the claimants - these are very large institutions suing other very large institutions. These lawsuits are not the kind of lawyer-driven stock drop lawsuits that have drawn so much ire from would be reformers. These are conservative business litigants using plaintiffs' tools seeking to recoup significant losses. These sophisticated litigants may be unlikely to accept quick compromises, and, mindful of their own fiduciary obligations, may well be unwilling to accept any compromise that does not represent a very significant percentage of the losses.

The second important implication of the State Street lawsuits is the sheer magnitude of the dollars involved, as demonstrated by State Street's pre-tax set aside of $618 million for cases that are only in their earliest stages. The State Street litigation reserve underscores the staggering exposures that these cases and others like it represent. The stakes in these cases are enormous.

The third implication derives directly from the enormity of the financial exposures involved; that is, these cases clearly have very serious repercussions for liability insurers, a consideration discussed in a January 4, 2008 Dow Jones newswire article entitled "Subprime Litigation May Dent D & O Insurers Like Chubb, AIG" (here). The article's overall conclusion - that the subprime litigation wave may represent a significant concern for D & O insurers - is a valid point that I have in fact previously considered in a prior post (here). However, while I generally agree with the Dow Jones article's overall thrust, I do disagree with some the article's premises.

The most egregious of the article's faulty premises is that the State Street lawsuits represent a D & O insurance exposure. The article disregards the fact that four of the five State Street lawsuits are brought under ERISA. The typical D & O policy contains an ERISA exclusion, primarily because exposures under ERISA are covered under a separate fiduciary liability policy, not a D & O policy.

In addition, none of the five complaints name as a defendant any individuals; there are no director or officer defendants in any of these complaints (although there are John Doe defendants named without further identification in several of the complaints). The entity coverage under the typical D & O policy provide coverage only for securities claims against insured entities, and none of the five complaints raise securities law allegations.

So, contrary to the Dow Jones article's presumption, the State Street complaints do not themselves appear to embody any particular D & O insurance threat, as in their current forms at least, they would not appear implicate the typical D & O insurance policy. To be sure, the complaints may represent serious threats to fiduciary liability insurers and perhaps even to investment management errors and omissions (E & O) insurers, and to that extent the implication would seem to be that the subprime litigation wave represents a much more extensive threat to the insurance industry beyond just D & O. All of which does indeed suggest that the subprime litigation wave is a potentially complex and serious threat to insurers generally. To that extent, at least, the Dow Jones article is correct when it states that State Street's reserve "has increased concern that insurers offering policies covering such exposures could be hit with big claims from the credit crisis."

In any event, I do agree that the subprime litigation wave represents a threat to the D & O insurers, even if the State Street lawsuits themselves may not. My prior blog posts on the potential impact on D & O insurers from the subprime meltdown can be found here and here; even though I wrote these posts months age, the analysis still appears more or less valid.

It should also be noted that there have been a number of other subprime related lawsuits brought under ERISA, primarily by employees raising allegations relating to company stock held in the 401(k) plans. A list of these employee ERISA lawsuits may be found in my running tally of subprime-related litigation, here.

The January 6, 2007 New York Times has an article entitled "Testing Investors' Faith in State Street" (here) that examines the market's curious reaction to State Street's announcement concerning its litigation reserve -- its stock price went up, hitting a 52-week high, a response that Times columnist Gretchen Morgenson is at a loss to explain.

Now This: The American Dialect Society has chosen (here) "subprime" as the 2007 Word of the Year. Pondering this development, I was moved to reflect that the subprime meltdown has moved beyond a mere financial event; it has become a cultural, social, and even political phenomenon.

Like all important phenomena, the subprime meltdown has deep roots, which arguably go back to the early 80s when the market for mortgage securities was more or less invented at Salomon Brothers, as entertainingly retold in Michael Lewis's classic, Liar's Poker. Though the events described in Lewis's book took place over twenty years ago, they resonate now with irony and sometimes even ominous portent, although much of the current resonance was perhaps unintended when the words were originally written.

The most portentous segments detail the creation in the mid-80s of the recently eventful mortgage security, the collateralized mortgage obligation (CMO), about which Lewis notes, in words that contemporary investors in Norway, Japan, Australia and the U.K might now rue, that "CMOs opened the ways for international investors who thought American homeowners were a good bet." Lewis also notes, in an observation that seems particularly ironic today, that that as a result of the innovation of CMOs, "investors now had a new, firm idea of what the price of a mortgage bond should be." Lewis goes on to describe how the Wall Street Bankers "found a seemingly limitless number of ways to slice and dice home mortgages."

Space constraints prevent doing full justice to Lewis's account, so fraught with significance in light of today's circumstances. Suffice it to say that given recent events, Liar's Poker merits and rewards a re-reading. It is as entertaining as it ever was, but the description of the invention of the market for mortgage bonds seems to matter in ways that it did not previously.

Special thanks to loyal reader Matt Rossman, who pointed out Liar's Poker's newly relevant historical value some time ago - I only recently got around to following up on Matt's suggestion to re-read the book.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks