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

Even though the current subprime litigation wave seemingly has swept the prior scandal into the past, lawsuits based on options backdating allegtions stubbornly continue to come in. Within recent days, plaintiffs’ lawyers have filed two new options backdating-related derivative lawsuits. The options backdating scandal may now be well over two years along, but it continues to generate new litigation activity and controversy.

First, as described in an August 1, 2008 article in the Seattle Intelligencer (here), on July 17, 2008, a shareholder filed a lawsuit in King County (Wash.) Superior Court on behalf of Costco Wholesale Corp. against 20 of its current and former directors and officers. According to the article, the suit seeks “unspecified financial damages and internal company reforms.” A copy of the complaint can be found here.

Second, as discussed in a July 30, 2008 Kansas City Star article (here), on July 29, 2008, a shareholder of Epiq Systems filed an options backdating-related shareholders derivative lawsuit on the company’s behalf against nine current and former directors and officers. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

The Epiq complaint alleges that the company “has secretly backdated millions of options to its top officers and directors for nearly a decade, reporting false financial statements and issuing false proxies to shareholders.”

With the addition of these two most recent lawsuits, my current tally of the total number of options backdating-related derivative lawsuits now stands at 168. The number of options backdating-related securities class action lawsuits stands at 39, including two new lawsuits filed in 2008. My updated list of the options backdating-related lawsuits can be found here.

Regular readers know that I have also been tracking options backdating-related case dispositions and settlements (here). Though the list of dispositions and settlements is now quite lengthy, the reality is that the vast majority of the options backdating cases are yet to be resolved. The fact that so many remain unresolved, together with the fact that new lawsuits continue to be filed, suggest that it will be quite some time before all of the options-backdating litigation is finally put to rest.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for the link to the Epiq article and for information about the Costco case.

Thoughts About Crisis Longevity: It is worth contemplating the likely long duration of the options backdating phenomenon in the context of the current subprime and credit crisis litigation wave. The subprime and credit crisis problems are so much more pervasive and so much more serious, and it likely that the related litigation will continue to emerge for months and perhaps years to come. It may be correspondingly even longer before the full dimensions of the subprime-related litigation wave can be fully assessed.

Indeed, in the Financial Times August 3, 2008 first anniversary retrospective of the subprime crisis (here), the paper specifially notes, "A year later, there is still no sign of an end to these problems. Instead, the sense of pressure on western banks has risen so high that by some measures this is now the worst financial crisis seen in the west for 70 years."

We may have options backdating litigation around for quite a while yet, but we will be living with the consequences of the subprime crisis for years to come.

Cross-Eyed Bear: When the history of the subprime crisis is finally written, the collapse of Bear Stearns will be a key part of the narrative. By the same token, the litigation involving Bear Stearns will also be a key part of the litigation history. The amount of litigation involving Bear Stearns is massive, but an August 4, 2008 Fortune article helpfully provides a comprehensive list and overview, here.

As the article correctly notes, "fortunately for former senior Bear executives like Jimmy Cayne, Alan Greenberg and Alan Schwartz, J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to indemnify Bear's officers and directors for six years against these lawsuits."

Really Big Box Stores: I was surprised to learn, while writing this post, that Costco is as big of a company as it is. The companies’ current market capitalization is approximately $27 billion, with annual sales (2007) of $64 billion.

By most measures, those statistics would qualify Costco as a big company. But its competitor big box retailer Wal-Mart Stores manages to make Costco look modest by comparison. Wal-Mart’s current market cap is $230 billion and its 2007 sales were $378 billion.

If Wal-Mart were a country, and if its revenue were supposed to be equivalent to GDP, Wal-Mart would be the 25^th largest economy in the world (according to the rankings of the International Monetary Fund, here) --  larger than Saudi Arabia, Austria or Greece. Or as big as Kuwait, New Zealand and Algeria combined. That’s big.

If you are still straining to comprehend how big Wal-Mart truly is, you may want to check out this amazing animation video (here) depicting the efflorescence of Wal-Mart stores across a map of the United States. Wal-Mart is amazing, this video simply makes that fact easier to grasp.  

A very special hat tip to Tom Kirkendall at the Houston’s Clear Thinkers blog (here) for the link to the cool Wal-Mart growth video. Kirkendall’s site also links to this very cool BBC video (here) tracking electronically the balletic conduct of commerce in the British Isles.

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

In two recent federal district court decisions, two options backdating-related securities class action lawsuits – one involving Witness Systems and one involving Jabil Circuit – were dismissed.

First, in the Witness Systems case, on March 31, 2008, Judge Clarence Cooper of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, with prejudice. A copy of the Order can be found here. Background regarding the case can be found here.

The complaint alleged that seven options grants in 2000 and 2001 were backdated and that four grants in 2004 were springloaded. Oddly, the plaintiff alleged that he company’s financial statements during the period April 23, 2004 to August 11, 206 were misleading because of the 2000-2001 backdating. The allegedly misleading statements allegedly began earlier and continued through the class period.

Judge Cooper found that

Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient, particularized facts to support a “cogent and compelling” inference of scienter as to Witness or as to each Individual Defendant. Although the [amended complaint] is lengthy, the details contained therein are simply insufficient to support a strong inference of scienter. Specifically, the allegations are in the nature of a theory that Defendants must have known that the 2004 and 2005 financial statements were misstated due to backdating that occurred in 2000 and 2001. The [amended complaint] never explains when, or how, any or all Defendants learned about the circumstances pertaining to any backdated option grants. (Citations omitted.)

Judge Cooper went on to observe that “nothing is alleged that would demonstrate that these individuals had any knowledge that disclosures during the class period might require further adjustments based on options grants made in 2000 and 2001.”

Judge Cooper further found that the defendants’ stock sales did not support an inference of scienter. Judge Cooper specifically found that the defendants’ “pattern of regular dispostions was inconsistent with allegations of scienter, and the two defendants who sold significant share percentages only joined the company as a result of a merger after the alleged backdating. Judge Cooper also found that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled loss causation.

In the Jabil Circuit case, on April 9, 2008, Judge Steven Merryday of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, but with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have until May 12, 2008 to file an amended complaint. A copy of the April 9 order can be found here. Background regarding the Jabil Circuit case can be found here.

The Jabil Circuit case may be of some interest because the company was one of the several companies whose option grants were reflected in the charts that accompanied the  original March 18, 2006 Wall Street Journal article entitled “The Perfect Payday” (here) that launched the options backdating scandal.

The crux of Judge Merryday’s decision is his conclusion that the plaintiffs’ allegations failed to establish that any grant was backdated. Judge Merryday said:

Although the complaint specifies the offending statement and identifies when and where the defendants issued the statement, the complaint includes deficient allegations concerning the falsity of the statement. The plaintiffs purport to allege repeated instances of backdating by stating the dates of “suspiciously timed” option grants and the individual defendants who received the grants. However, the plaintiffs never allege the any specific grant of stock to any specific individual defendant was backdated. The issuance of suspiciously timed options fails to convert the [company’s compensation policy] representation into a false and misleading statement.

Having found that the complaint did not adequately allege backdating, Judge Merryday was able to dispose of plaintiffs’ allegations that the company had not properly accounted for the option grant or made misrepresentations when company officials later denied that there had been backdating.

Judge Merryday also found that the plaintiffs’ scienter allegations were insufficient because the complaints’ allegations of “knowledge of non-public information fails to raise an inference of scienter with respect to any defendant.” The insider trading allegations were insufficient because the complaint failed to allege the percentage of total shares sold or to compare the share sales to sales before and after the class period. The defendants’ alleged receipt of option grants was also found insufficient.

Judge Merryday also found that the complaint’s allegations of GAAP, IRS and SEC violations were insufficient “because the complaint fails to adequately allege a basis for the claim of backdating.” Similarly, with respect to the issue of loss causation, Judge Merryday found that “having failed to adequately allege the falsity of the backdating-related statements, the plaintiffs fail to sufficiently plead loss causation as to those statements.” Judge Merryday also rejected plaintiffs’ claims of proxy misstatements based on the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately allege backdating.

I have added these two dismissals to my table of options backdating lawsuit settlements, dismissals and denials, which can be accessed here. These two dismissals may be noteworthy because they appear to be the first options backdating securities lawsuit dismissals outside of the Ninth Circuit. They are also the first dismissals granted in an options backdating securities lawsuit in several months. But while some of these options backdating securities suits have now been resolved, many more remain pending.

As reflected on my running tally of the options backdating lawsuit filings (which can be found here), there were a total of 36 options backdating-related securities class action lawsuits filed. And as reflected in my table of options backdating lawsuit case dispositions (linked above), of these 36 cases, eight have settled, six have had their motions to dismiss denied, and five have been dismissed (albeit some with leave to amend). That leave 17 cases on which no action has yet been taken, and with the six dismissal denials, 23 cases that remain pending – not to mention the cases on which amended pleadings or appeals may give new life.

These cases appear to have a very long way to run yet. But the high degree of skepticism shown in these two opinions is striking, and would not bode well for these cases were this general view to become widespread.

Special thanks to an alert reader who prefer anonymity for providing copies of the two opinions.

Another Subprime-Related D&O Loss Estimate: On April 9, 2008, Fitch’s Ratings released a report entitled “Subprime Mortgage Exposure for Property/Casualty Insurers.” A link to the repor can be found in this Business Insurance article (here), but registration is required for access to the report.

The report repeats prior estimates of industry-wide insured subprime-related losses in the range of $3 to $4 billion (although also noting that estimates have ranged as high as $9 billion). The report states that “Fitch believes that the majority of these losses will be borne by the larges writers of primary and excess D&O.”

The report also states that “Fitch believes that the near-term impact from the subprime issues will have a stabilizing or modestly positive effect on professional liability rates, especially within the financial services sector, but are unlikely to result in broad hardening.” The report warns though that “if the credit contagion spreads into sectors not directly tied to the subprime mortgage market or if the weakening economy leads to increased bankruptcies, current loss estimates will prove to be inadequate and there could be adverse reserve development that could have a larger impact on rates going forward.”

Fitch’s estimates and comments are largely in line with prior D&O loss estimate, about which I previously commented here.

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