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

The facts and circumstances surrounding Bank of America’s credit crisis-induced acquisition of Merrill Lynch remain among the highest profile and most controversial events during the global financial crisis. In a July 29, 2011 opinion (here), Southern District of New York Judge Kevin Castel granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ renewed motions to dismiss in the consolidated Bank of America securities litigation arising out of BofA’s acquisition of Merrill.

Judge Castel’s opinion deals with two of the most controversial aspects of the events surrounding the deal – BofA’s alleged failure during the fourth quarter of 2008 to disclose Merrill’s deteriorating financial condition after the deal was announced but prior to the shareholder vote; and BofA’s alleged  failure to disclose the commitments of key government officials of financial inducements offered to BofA to complete the deal.

Background

In mid-September 2008, at the height of the global financial crisis, BofA agreed to acquire Merrill Lynch. In October and November 2008, while shareholder approval of the transaction was pending, Merrill suffered losses of over $15 billion and also took a $2 billion goodwill impairment charge. The Complaint alleges that BofA’s senior officials were aware of these losses as they occurred. The Complaint alleges that the losses were so significant that BofA management discussed terminating the transaction, prior to the December 5, 2008 shareholder vote on the merger, in which BofA shareholders approved the merger.

On December 17, 2008, BofA Chariman and CEO Kenneth Lewis called Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to advise him that BofA was "strongly considering" invoking the “material adverse change” clause in the merger agreement, in order to terminate the deal prior to its scheduled January 1, 2009 close date.  At Paulson’s invitation, Lewis flew to Washington for a face-to-face meeting, at which Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chair Ben Bernanke urged Lewis not to invoke the MAC clause.

In subsequent conversations, Lewis again advised the government officials that BofA intended to invoke the MAC clause. According to the plaintiffs’ allegations, BofA’s board voted on December 21, 2008 to invoke the MAC clause, but on the following day, the Board voted to approve the merger, apparently in part based on Lewis’s statement that he had received verbal assurances from Paulson that BofA would received a capital infusion and a guarantee against losses from risky assets if the merger concluded.

On January 16, 2010, BofA disclosed the fourth quarter losses of both BofA and Merrill and also revealed the federal funding package, which included $20 billion in capital and protection against further losses on $118 billion in assets. In following days, news reports revealed that in the days prior to the deal’s close, Merrill employees had been paid massive bonuses. 

In response to this news, BofA’s share price declined, and shareholder litigation ensued. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misstated and concealed matters related to the Merrill bonuses, the losses that accrued in the Fourth Quarter of 2008 after the merger was announced, and the pressure to consummate the deal from government officials. After the securities and derivative lawsuits were consolidated, the defendants moved to dismiss.

In a lengthy August 27, 2010 opinion (about which refer here), Judge Castel denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. First, he denied the defendants’ dismissal motions with regard to the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the disclosures of the Merrill bonuses. Next, he concluded that while the plaintiffs had also alleged that there were materially misleading misrepresentations or omissions about Merrill Lynch’s deteriorating 4Q08 financial condition and about the promised government financial inducements, the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged scienter as to these topics, and so he denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to these allegations.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint (hereafter, the “complaint”). The amendments in the complaint were primarily intended to address the court’s concerns regarding the scienter allegations. The defendants renewed their motions to dismiss.

The July 29 Opinion

In his July 29 ruling, Judge Castel denied the defendant’s dismissal motion as to the allegations surrounding Merrill’s declining 4Q08 financial condition, but granted the dismissal motion as to the allegations about the government bailout. He held that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint adequately alleged scienter as to the Merrill’s financial condition in the fourth quarter of 2008, but did not adequately allege a duty to update prior disclosures  as to the financial support the government officials offered in order to facilitate the deal.

In considering the plaintiffs’ amended allegations concerning Merrill’s 4Q08 losses, Judge Castel first found that the plaintiffs’ had not adequately alleged   that the defendants had a “motive” to mislead. The plaintiffs had alleged that BofA CEO Kenneth Lewis wanted to complete the deal to realize a “long-time business goal.” Lewis, the plaintiffs had alleged, was also motivated to complete the deal to keep his position, after Paulson had “bluntly told Lewis that the Federal Reserve would remove BofA’s senior management if it tried to terminate the transaction.” Judge Castel said neither of these “raised a strong inference of scienter” as there is no allegation that Lewis or BofA’s CFO Joe Price “could personally have profited from either the delay or the closure of the Merrill transaction.”

However, Judge Castel concluded that, with respect to the BofA’s alleged omissions regarding Merrill’s deteriorating 4Q08 financial condition, that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged “recklessness” as to both Lewis and Price.

With respect to Price, Castel concluded based on the plaintiffs’ allegations that the CFO, upon receiving the initial recommendation of the company’s General Counsel that Merrill’s deteriorating results should be disclosed, kept the GC “out of the loop” which “impeded counsel from making a fully informed analysis.’ These allegations are sufficient to infer that upon receiving the GC’s initial discourse recommendation, Price “engaged in ‘conscious recklessness’ amounting to ‘an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care.’”

Castel concluded, based on the plaintiff allegations that Lewis had full information regarding Merrill’s declining results and that, in light of the transaction’s importance and the magnitude of Merrill’s losses, and that Lewis was reckless in failing to seek guidance of BofA’s disclosure obligations, that  the complaint adequately alleges that “Lewis’s inaction on the disclosure issue raises a strong inference of recklessness.”

In granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss with plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the financial benefits the government officials had offered, Judge Castel said that the plaintiffs had to show that the defendants had a duty to update prior disclosures when subsequent events rendered prior statements misleading. Judge Castel said that the plaintiffs’ complaint “does not, however, allege which statements were rendered misleading by the non-disclosure of federal financial assistance.” Because the complaint “does not allege which statements were allegedly rendered fraudulent by the defendants’ omissions,” the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the PSLRA’s pleading requirements.

Discussion

One of the reasons the BofA/Merrill merger remains so controversial is that, only after the deal closed, the information came out about Merrill’s losses, the governmental financial inducements, and the payment of the Merrill bonuses. The shocked reaction of the financial marketplace reflected in part an expectation that this information should have been disclosed previously to BofA’s shareholders and to the investing public. While the actual facts and circumstances remain a matter of proof, the plaintiffs portray a set of circumstances in which BofA officials were straining to avoid disclosing potentially disruptive information in order to try to preserve the deal – in part because of threats and inducements from senior government officials.

But no matter how compelling this version of the events may be, they still have to fit within the analytic framework required in order to state a claim under the federal securities laws. Judge Castel’s careful consideration tests the allegations against this analytic framework. Nevertheless, plaintiffs’ suggestion that it was misleading not to tell BofA shareholders that the deal was competed only because of massive government financial inducements, as well as threats to senior BofA officials, does present its own kind of narrative plausibility.

It is probable worth noting that by concluding that the defendants’ had no duty to update prior statements in order to disclose the government financial inducements, Judge Castel avoided the need to get into the questions, which he had addressed in his prior opinion, whether or not the defendants acted with scienter in withholding this information. Indeed, one of the more controversial aspects of Judge Castel’s prior opinion was his conclusion that, in part because the BofA officials had been ordered by the government officials not to disclose the government bailout, they had not acted with scienter in withholding the information. 

In any event, plaintiffs have now succeeded in at least two respects in fitting their plausible narrative into the analytic framework required in order to pursue a securities class action lawsuit. The case will now go forward with respect to the claims relating to the alleged failure to disclose the Merrill bonuses and the alleged failure to disclose Merrill’s massive 4Q08 losses. Even without the provocative allegations regarding the actions of the government officials, this will remain an interesting and high-profile case.

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

In a March 29, 2011 order (here), Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss a pair of subprime-related derivative lawsuits that had been brought against certain directors and officers of Merrill Lynch. Because the plaintiffs -- former shareholders of Merrill Lynch who became BofA shareholders at the time of BofA’s January 2009 acquisition of Merrill—asserted their claims in the capacities as BofA shareholders, both lawsuits represented so-called double derivative suits. A copy of Judge Rakoff’s March 29 ruling can be found here.

Judge Rakoff granted the motions to dismiss because he concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to show that BofA’s board was” so involved in the underlying wrongdoing alleged in the derivative complaint that it could not impartially consider a demand to pursue claims against the Merrill officers and directors.”

Both lawsuits sought to assert claims against the defendants for the “unprecedented losses” Merrill had experienced “as a result of its aggressive investment in collateralized debt obligations.” A detailed review of the underlying facts can be found here. In an earlier ruling, Judge Rakoff had previously ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert derivative claims on Merrill’s behalf because they were no longer Merrill shareholders. His prior ruling was without prejudice to their refilling their claims in their capacities as BofA shareholders.

The plaintiffs refilled their complaints seeking to compel BofA’s board to force its Merrill subsidiary to bring claims against certain Merrill directors and officers in connection with Merrill’s reckless investments. The key difference in the two actions is that in the first action (referred to as the “Derivative Action”), the plaintiffs allege that they are not required to bring a demand that BofA’s board bring the action against the Merrill officials, whereas in the second action (the “Lambrecht Action”), the plaintiffs had presented a demand which the BofA board had refused.

Judge Rakoff concluded that both actions should be dismissed, noting that

The Court does not take this step lightly, for the allegations of the complaint, if true, describe the kind of risky behavior by high-ranking financiers that helped created the economic crisis from which so many Americans continue to suffer. But a derivative action is brought for the benefit of the company, and nothing here alleged in the complaints raises a reason to doubt that the board of the relevant company, BofA, was at all times fairly positioned to determine whether bringing an action against Merrill’s former directors and officers was in the company’s interests.

With respect to the Derivative Action, Judge Rakoff specifically concluded that the plaintiffs had “failed to make a legally adequate showing” that the BofA board was so involved in the underlying wrongdoing “that it could not impartially consider a demand to pursue claims against the Merrill officers and directors.”

With respect to the Lambrecht Action, Judger Rakoff concluded that the plaintiffs had “failed to carry the considerable burden of showing that the BofA’s Board’s decision not to bring a lawsuit against the Merrill officers and directors was made in bad faith or was based on an unreasonable investigation.”  

Discussion

Some time ago, as discussed here, Merrill Lynch settled for $475 million dollars the related securities class action lawsuit that had been filed on behalf of Merrill’s shareholder. Merrill also at the same time agreed to settle the related ERISA liability suit for an additional $75 million. In addition, Merrill agreed to settle the related securities suit that had been brought by its bondholders for $150 million, as discussed here. These settlements represent $700 million in aggregate.

However, Merrill and its successor in interest BofA declined to settle the related derivative litigation, and Judge Rakoff’s decision dismissing the derivative litigation appears to vindicate that decision.

Judge Rakoff’s ruling is interesting if for no other reason that the unusual posture of the double derivative suit, where the demand to pursue the claims against the former directors and officers of a subsidiary must be directed against the board of the parent company.

The ruling is also interesting because it illustrates just how difficult it is to overcome the initial pleading hurdles in a derivative suit. Judge Rakoff concluded that the initial pleading requirements had not been satisfied notwithstanding allegations that Judge Rakoff himself said “describe the kind of risky behavior by high-ranking financiers that helped create the economic crisis from which so many Americans continue to suffer. “ The clear implication is that even allegations of egregious behavior will not suffice if the demand requirements have not been satisfied or proved inapplicable.

Judge Rakoff’s analysis of the BofA board’s rejection of the Lambrecht plaintiffs’ suit demand is particularly interesting. In reviewing the substance of the reasons the BofA board gave for rejecting the demand, Judge Rakoff noted that the rejection letter the board had sent “belies plaintiff’s assertions” that the rejection was cursory and the letter itself mere boilerplate. In support of this conclusion, he noted that the board had reasoned that taking up the litigation as the Lambrecht plaintiffs demanded would have undermined Merrill’s defenses in the securities litigation and in the ERISA litigation. The letter also reflected the board’s conclusion that the cost of the urged litigation might well any benefit that might reasonably be expected. These types of considerations often are present when these types of demands are presented to boards, and Judge Rakoff’s analysis seems to confirm that it these kinds of considerations are appropriate for boards to take into account in rejecting litigation demands.

Finally, Judge Rakoff rejected the plaintiffs suggestions that the response letter irself showed that consideration of the litigation demand was cursory, noting that” there is no prescribed procedure a board must follow in responding to a demand letter.”

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

Nate Raymond's March 29, 2011 Am Law Litigation Daily article about Judge Rakoff's decision can be found here.

Special thanks to the securities litigation group at Skadden for forwarding me a copy of Judge Rakoff’s ruling. Skadden represented Bank of America and Merrill Lynch in the two derivative suits.

An International D&O Resource. I know from conversations with readers that one issue of recurring concern is finding resources on which to rely in connection with the non-U.S. exposures of directors and officers. With that concern in mind, I am pleased to link here to the recently completed paper by my friend Perry Granof. The paper, which is entitled “The Top 10 Non-US-Jurisdictions Based Upon Maturity and Activity” (here) analyzes the ten non-U.S. jurisdictions that Perry believes have the most evolved systems with respect to the liabilities of directors and officers. The list also includes three ‘up-and-coming” jurisdictions, as well.

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

One of the most interesting aspects of the complicated sequence of events surrounding the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch merger is the suggestion that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson instructed BofA’s CEO Ken Lewis not to disclose to BofA shareholders that the government, in order to keep BofA from backing out of the deal, was backstopping BofA to the tune of billions of dollars of additional TARP funds and asset guarantees.

As I recently pointed out in my discussion of the opinion, Southern District of New York Judge Kevin Castel, in his August 27, 2010 dismissal motion ruling in the BofA/Merrill securities suit, found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged scienter in connection with BofA’s alleged failure to disclose this federal backstop.

In support of this conclusion, Castel said the defendants were "acting at the instruction of the Treasury Secretary during a moment of acute economic and political uncertainty. There are no allegations of personal gain derived from the federal funds, or a violation of a statute or regulation in a ‘highly unreasonable’ manner."

Castel doesn’t say that BofA didn’t have a duty to disclose the existence of the federal backstop. But if BofA had a duty to disclose the information, what difference does it make under the federal securities laws that Paulson told Lewis not to disclose it? As CNN Money journalist Colin Barr noted on September 1, 2010 in his Street Sweep blog post entitled "Judge Embraces ‘Paulson Made Me’ Defense" (here), Castel’s ruling has "left some observers scratching their heads."

Is Castel suggesting that there is some kind of governmental instruction or national emergency exception to the disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws? On what basis? Whose instruction is sufficient? What level of exigency is sufficient and who decides?

I was glad to see Barr’s post focusing on this aspect of Judge Castel’s ruling. I think these issues are both interesting and important, but for whatever reason, this part of Castel’s opinion has largely gone without public comment.

I did explore these issues in my prior post about Judge Castel’s opinion. Because I think these issues are worthy of attention and further consideration, and at risk of appearing a little too self-referential, I am reproducing here my prior comments about this aspect of Judge Castel’s ruling, in order to try to highlight these issues and to try to encourage further discussion of these questions. Here are my thoughts on this issue:

The BofA/Merrill Lynch merger was one of highest profile events during the peak of the global financial crisis in late 2008 and early 2009. The disclosures in early 2009 about Merrill’s losses and about the bonus payments were highly controversial. As a result, Judge Castle’s opinion in the consolidated shareholder litigation undoubtedly will provoke extensive scrutiny and commentary. There are indeed a number of parts of the opinion that are worthy of discussion, but the part this is the most interesting to me is his conclusion regarding the inadequacy of the scienter allegations in connection with the alleged failure to disclose the federal bailout that Lewis negotiated with Paulson.

As alleged in the complaint, this massive federal package was negotiated after the shareholder vote but before the deal closed. Its existence was apparently critical to the BofA board’s vote to go forward with the deal rather than to invoke the MAC clause. Moreover, it was understood that Paulson’s verbal agreement would have to be disclosed if it were reduced to writing – and accordingly, it was not reduced to writing so it wouldn’t have to be disclosed.

In concluding that these actions, which seem to have been taken precisely so that something everyone recognized as important would not have to be disclosed prior to the merger closing, do not give rise to a strong inference of scienter, Judge Castel relied on two considerations: (1) Paulson "instructed" Lewis not to disclose the federal package; and (2) Lewis had nothing to gain personally from withholding disclosure.

Though these factors undoubtedly are relevant, it strikes me that these points do not necessarily answer the question whether or not Lewis consciously misled BofA shareholders of acted with reckless indifference to the truth.

It could be argued that the allegations strongly suggest that Lewis did not want the BofA shareholders to know that the only reason the BofA board was willing to go forward with the deal was the existence of massive federal support. A plausible inference is that he, like Paulson, feared the chaos that would have emerged if these facts were revealed before the deal closed. It is also plausible to infer that Lewis and others didn’t want to anger Paulson and risk losing the proffered federal support.

These might all have seemed like good and sufficient reasons to withhold the information, but whether or not the reasons might have seemed good and sufficient does not answer the question whether Lewis and others acted with awareness of or conscious disregard whether BofA shareholders would be misled.

The fact that Paulson "instructed" Lewis to withhold disclosure does not answer the question whether or not Lewis was aware BofA shareholders would be mislead; to the contrary, it might actually suggest a concern that BofA’s shareholders couldn’t be trusted with the truth. (Indeed, Paulson’s instruction arguably does nothing more than make him complicit in the alleged deception, which in Paulson’s case, encompassed not just BofA shareholders but also U.S. taxpayers.)

Why is Paulson’s "instruction" relevant at all to the question whether or not the securities laws were violated? Is Castel suggesting that there is some sort of immunity from securities liability if the actions were at the request of a government official? It seems to me that the supposed relevance of Paulson’s instruction is surprisingly unexamined in Castel’s opinion, and the entire discussion of the issue is disconnected from the question whether or not Lewis knew that the shareholders would be misled.

Judge Castel’s emphasis on Lewis’s lack of personal benefit, while not irrelevant, is also beside the point. Lewis’s lack of personal benefit certainly doesn’t answer the question whether Lewis and others were deliberately taking steps to avoid disclosing material information because they were afraid of what would happen if they did.

In the final analysis, I think Judge Castel’s ruling can perhaps only be understood by his observation that these events took place "during a moment of acute economic and political uncertainty." While this fact has nothing to do with whether or not Lewis was consciously withholding information from BofA shareholders, it does suggest Castel is simply unwilling to permit liability for actions taken at the direction of senior public officials at a time of national exigency. It is almost as if he is saying, with shrugging shoulders, "What else was BofA going to do?" I certainly understand this way of looking at these circumstances. The problem is that it doesn’t necessarily address the questions required by the securities laws.

Judge Castel does not actually say he is inferring either an official instruction or national emergency exception to the requirements of the securities laws. But by emphasizing those aspects of the situation, he seems to be suggesting that these exceptions exist and apply.

To be sure, Judge Castel did observe that the scienter allegations regarding the nondisclosure of the federal package, which he characterized as "thin," might have been sufficient if they were accompanied by adequate allegations of motive or recklessness. It could be argued that his ruling is simply a reflection of insufficient factual pleading, which may be the case. Nevertheless, his analysis raises many questions that in my view are insufficiently examined, whether or not the scienter allegations themselves were or were not sufficient.

Given the high profile nature of this case, I suspect there will be much discussion of Judge Castle’s opinion in the weeks and months ahead. Legal proceedings arising out of these circumstances do seem to attract controversy – as, with for example, Judge Rakoff’s high profile rejection of the SEC’s settlement of its enforcement action against BofA arising from these circumstances.

Back to School: Add one more company to the list of for-profit education companies that have recently been sued in securities class action lawsuits. As I discussed in a recent post, within the space of just a few days in August, plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a cluster of lawsuits against for-profit education companies. On August 31, 2010, plaintiffs’ lawyers added one more company to the list when they sued Corinthian Colleges and certain of its directors and offices, based on allegations similar to those raise against the other for-profit education companies. A copy of the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ press release can be found here.

Old School: I wonder if this for-profit education company’s schools cover their chairs with Soft Corinthian Leather. For those who miss the reference, and in respectful memory of Ricardo Montalban, here is the original Chrysler Cordoba advertisement to which I was referring :

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

A couple of years ago, a "worrisome trend" developed in securities class action litigation, in which large institutional investors began routinely opting out of plaintiff class to separately pursue their own individual claims under the securities laws. The settlement of these individual opt out actions in many cases rivaled, in the aggregate, the amount of the class action settlement, and often exceeded the class settlement in terms of percentage of shareholder losses recovered.

These developments caused some observers to question whether we were headed toward a two-tiered system of securities litigation, where the large institutional investors separately pursued their own claims and the class action proceeded on behalf of other investors.

As it turned out, however, the phenomenon of the large individual opt out settlement separate from the class has ceased to be as prominent as it briefly was during the period 2006 to 2008. Since that time, there have been fewer high profile opt out settlements, and the predictions about fundamental alterations of securities class action litigation have died down.

However, in a development that seems to raise the possibility that the high profile opt-out action may be back, on July 22, 2010, New York Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that he had filed two separate individual actions on behalf of New York state pension funds against Merrill Lynch and Bank of America and their respective individual directors and officers.

In the Merrill Lynch complaint (a copy of which can be found here), DiNapoli alleges that between October 17, 2006 and December 31, 2008, the defendants misrepresented the company’s "true exposures to poorly underwritten subprime mortgages, as well as the value of the Company’s subprime-exposed assets and liabilities and the effectiveness of Merrill’s risk management. The complaint alleges beginning in October 2007 the company began a series of stair step writedowns of the value of the company’s toxic assets, and that ultimately the company was forced to merge with Bank of America as a result of its exposure to subprime mortgages.

In the Bank of America Complaint (a copy of which can be found here), DiNapoli alleges in the documents for BoA’s merger with Merrill, the company and three of its senior executives failed to disclose Merrill’s massive fourth quarter 2008 losses and also failed to disclose BofA’s and Merrill’s agreement to permit Merrill to pay up to $5.8 billion in bonuses. The Complaint also alleges that the defendants violated the securities laws through a series of misleading statements and omissions during the period September 15, 2008 (when the merger was announced) and January 21, 2009 (when the information about the fourth quarter losses and the bonuses were made public).

The New York State Pension funds owned 17.7 million BofA shares at the time of the merger and acquired another 3 million between September 15, 2008 and January 21, 2009.

The circumstances described in DiNapoli’s complaints have previously been the subject of extensive litigation. Among other things, the allegations in DiNapoli’s complaint against the Bank of America defendants previously were the subjective of a high profile SEC enforcement action that ultimately resulted in a $150 million settlement. (For a discussion of the events surrounding this SEC settlement, refer here.)

In addition, there previously have been securities class action lawsuits filed against both the Merrill defendants and Bank of America defendants. The Bank of America class action lawsuit is in fact being driven by a group of public pension fund defendants, led by Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray on behalf of Ohio public pension funds.

The circumstances referenced in DiNapoli’s Merrill Lynch complaint were also the subject of a separate securities class action lawsuit, about which refer here. Indeed, the parties to the Merrill Lynch lawsuit have already entered a $475 million settlement on behalf of the class, which the Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff approved on August 4, 2009.

In bringing his separate lawsuits on behalf of the New York public pension funds, DiNapoli has made a conscious and deliberate decision to opt out of the preexisting class action litigation against the two sets of defendants. Public statements by representatives of DiNapoli’s office made it clear the reason he took the separate action on behalf of the public pension funds is because "our attorneys believe this gives us a chance to get a better recovery." The possible recovery on behalf of the funds could reach "tens of millions of dollars."

DiNapoli’s action to opt out of the class action on the theory that the funds’ recovery will be greater if they proceed individually rather than part of the class is exactly what commentators had been predicting a couple of years ago, before the opt-out phenomenon faded into the background. DiNapoli’s action is all the more noteworthy with respect to the Merrill Lynch suit is all the more noteworthy, given the fact that the class has already entered a massive $475 million settlement. DiNapoli’s action not only raises the question whether other institutional plaintiffs might opt out in these cases, but whether the plaintiffs will opt out in other cases as well.

The interesting thing about the public explanations for DiNapoli’s action is that the decision seems to be the result of persuasion from the attorneys who convinced DiNapoli’s office to opt out. The presence of an entrepreneurial group of plaintiffs’ lawyers motivated to try to obtain individual institutional investor representations by convincing the investors to opt out of the class suggests that, even if the prevalence of high profile opt out actions may have faded into the background, we are likely to continue more of these kinds of developments going forward. The political motivations of public pension fund representatives clearly support these developments.

Of course, it remains to be seen if the New York funds will actually fare better than the classes in these cases. As Adam Savett pointed out in an interesting January 22, 2010 post on the Securities Litigation Watch, even if some claimant fare better by opting out, there can also be a "downside." The post refers to the claimants that opted out of the Aspen Technology class action (which settled for $5.6 million) but ultimately had their claims dismissed based on lack of proof of fraud, and so received nothing.

Nevertheless, if other institutional investors are persuaded that they will do better by proceeding individually, securities class action litigation could become even more complicated than it already is. The existence of separate proceedings could both drive up total litigation costs and increase both the cost and complexity of case settlements. My prior discussion of the potential problems the opt-out phenomenon might represent can be found here.

DiNapoli’s decision to separate the New York funds from the Bank of America class action, in which the Ohio Attorney General is taking the lead, presents an interesting contrast to DiNapoli’s actions in connection with the securities litigation pending against BP, in which the Ohio AG and DiNapoli are collaboratively pursing the class action litigation on behalf of their respective states’ pension funds, and, as reflected here, are in fact together seeking lead plaintiff status in the litigation. Whatever else might be said, it seems that DiNapoli has not been persuaded that the New York funds will always do better outside of the class action process.

Understanding the Global Economy: If like me you find so much about the current circumstances of the global economy confusing, you will want to watch the following John Clark and Bryan Dawe video in which they summarize the basics in an admirable fashion, particularly the way the unbroken chain of governmental borrowing ultimately presents unanswerable questions. (Special thanks to the CorporateCounsel.net blog for the link to this entertaining video.)

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