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

One of the ways in which the current wave of bank failures is different from the failures during the S&L crisis is that this time around, by comparison to that prior period, a number of the bank closures have been accompanied by shareholder lawsuits brought  against the former directors and officers of the failed institutions. Some of these shareholder suits have survived dismissal motions, as was the case, for example, with the lawsuit involving Corus Bankshares, the recent settlement of which is discussed below.

But there have also been a number of these failed bank shareholder suits that have not survived the preliminary motions, as was the case with the shareholder suit involving UCBH Holdings, as also described below. To be sure, the court’s grant of the UCBH defendants’ motion to dismiss is without prejudice. But in view of the nature of the factual allegations involved, the dismissal motion ruling is noteworthy. In particular the court’s consideration of the FDIC’s regulatory actions regarding the bank are particularly interesting.

UCBH was the holding company of United Commercial Bank of San Francisco. The FDIC took control of United Commercial Bank on November 6, 2009 (refer here). Shareholders filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California against eight officer defendants and six director defendants, as discussed at greater length here. Their complaint originally named UCBH  as well, but following UCBH’s November 25, 2009 bankruptcy filing, the claims against UCBH itself were stayed.

The plaintiffs allege that during the class period  the defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning UCBH’s allowances and provisions for loan loss and falsely represented that the company’s financial reporting controls were effective. The complaint further alleges that on May 8, 2009, the company’s auditor, KPMG, met with the FDIC and state banking authorities to discuss the deterioration in asset quality and overall deterioration of UCBH’s financial condition.

On May 13, 2009, KPMG alerted UCBH’s audit committee that illegal acts may have occurred relating to the overvaluation of impaired and real estate owned loans. The audit committee investigated. On September 8, 2009, the company announced that as a result of the investigation UCBH was required to restate its financial statements and that UCBH had reached a consent agreement with FDIC relating to a cease and desist order concerning alleged improprieties. UCBH’s  stock value fell and the bank ultimately was closed.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. In a May 17, 2011 order (here), Northern District of California Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, on the grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged scienter.

In concluding that the plaintiffs allegations were insufficient to create a strong inference scienter, Judge While found that the plaintiffs allegations based on UCBH’s statements about the efforts of “senior management” to monitor and evaluate the bank’s loan portfolio did “not contain sufficiently particularized allegations to give rise to a strong inference of scienter.” Similarly, Judge Whit found that the plaintiffs’ allegations that the senior officers were motivated to conceal UCBH’s financial condition in order to obtain TARP funds also failed to allege that the these defendants had information about the bank’s financial condition that was withheld or falsely reported.

The more interesting part of Judge White’s scienter analysis concerned the plaintiffs’ efforts to rely on the FDIC’s actions and findings. In particular the plaintiffs sought to rely on the findings in the FDIC’s “material loss review” (MLR) that “senior executives” engaged in deliberate misconduct to conceal the Bank’s deteriorating financial condition by delaying risk downgrades and minimizing the bank’s loan loss allowance. Judge White observed that these allegations do not support a strong inference of fraud “as to any one Defendant,” since the MLR does not name “any particular individual as responsible for the alleged misconduct.”

The plaintiffs also sought to rely on the FDIC’s report of examination in April 2009 and KPMG’s May 2009 report to the company’s audit committee to establish scienter, but Judge White found that the allegations do not establish when the defendants became aware of the alleged misconduct and which defendants became aware.

Finally Judge White rejected plaintiffs attempt to rely on the “core operations inference” to satisfy the scienter pleading requirement, essentially arguing that the matters alleged to be misrepresented were so essential  to the bank’s core operations as to establish that the defendants had access to the disputed information. Judge White rejected this suggestion, concluding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged that the loan loss allowances and provisions were part of the bank’s “core operations.”

Judge White’s ruling in the defendants’ favor on the dismissal was without prejudice, and the plaintiffs were given leave to replead. It may be that the plaintiffs will overcome the pleading deficiencies in their amended complaint – indeed, in many respects Judge White’s opinion provides a roadmap for repeading.

Nevertheless it is striking that the dismissal motion was denied in a case where the company’s own auditor reported that illegal acts may have occurred and where company’s own audit committee investigation preceded a restatement and an entry into a cease and desist order, and where the FDIC itself concluded that the “senior executives” engaged in deliberate misconduct to conceal the bank’s deteriorating financial condition. Judge White’s analysis represents  a very demanding application of the PSLRA’s specificity requirement. In particular, his unwillingness to accept the FDIC’s conclusions of misconduct involving “senior executives” as sufficient allegations against any one individual defendant is a very exacting application of the standard -- although certainly justified, from the defendants’ perspective.

It of course remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs will be able to cure the deficiencies on repleading.. But it is noteworthy that the UCBH is only one of several shareholder suits filed against directors and officers of failed banks that have faced difficulties overcoming the initial pleading hurdles. Motions to dismiss have been granted in a number of these cases, including for example the cases relating to Downey Financial (refer here), Fremont General (here) and Bank United (here -- without prejudice).  But as noted below, a number of survived the dismissal motions as well.

I have in any event added the UCBH ruling to my running tally of credit crisis dismissal motion rulings, which can be accessed here.

Corus Bankshares: Among the failed bank securities class action lawsuit is the one filed against the former directors and officers of Corus Bankshares, the parent company of Corus Bank, which closed on September 11, 2009 (about which refer here). As discussed here, in April 2010, Northern District of Illinois Judge Elaine Bucklo denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss (The opinion that stands in interesting contrast to Judge White’s opinion in the UCBH case.)

On May 17, 2011, the parties to the Corus Bankshares case filed a stipulation of settlement (here) indicating that the case has been settled for $10 million, all which is to be paid for by company’s D&O insurance. I have added the Corus settlement to my list of credit crisis securities lawsuit settlements, which can be accessed here.

As a result of its relatively modest size, the Corus settlement may not seem particularly noteworthy, which may be a fair assessment. What strikes me about the Corus settlements is that it represents something that still seems to be surprisingly rare, which is a settlement of credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuit.

Even though there were well over 230 credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuits filed, there still have only been 20 settlements of the credit crisis securities suits. To be sure, a fair number of these cases were dismissed, but a substantial number (like the Corus case) were not dismissed. Even though many of these cases are now several years old only a very small number have settled so far – indeed the Corus settlement is only the third such settlement this year.

It seems to me that there is a substantial backlog of these as-yet unresolved cases, many of which are moving – apparently very slowly -- toward settlement. Eventually these cases will settle in substantial numbers. Though many of the settlements will, like the Corus settlement, be relatively modest, some will not be so modest and in the aggregate the total settlements will likely represent a very large figure. Even though a large chunk of these settlements may not be insured, a big chunk will be insured. The collective cost to D&O insurers could represent an impressive total. Reasonable minds may question whether or not insurers are now fully reserved for this eventuality.

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

In an October 28, 2009 opinion (here) in a case in which the Ninth Circuit found the plaintiffs’ allegations met the heightened pleading standards of Twombley and Tellabs, the appellate court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint in the Matrixx Initiatives securities class action lawsuit. The decision is significant not only because the appellate court reversed the lower court’s prior dismissal of the case, but also because of what the Ninth Circuit’s opinion implies about the heightened pleading requirements.

The plaintiffs sued Matrixx and three of its officers in April 2004, alleging that the defendants were aware that numerous users of Matrixx’s intranasal cold remedy, Zicam, had developed anosmia (loss of the sense of smell), but that they had failed to disclose the risk and instead issued false and misleading statements regarding Zicam. The complaint alleges that the defendants were aware of these problems because of various calls to the company’s customer service line; because of certain academic research, the results of which were communicated to the company; and because of product liability lawsuits that had been filed against the company.

The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding that the complaint failed to adequately allege materiality, because the number of anosmia-related complaints of which Matrixx was aware was not "statistically significant." The district court also found that the complaint failed to allege scienter adequately because it "fails to allege any motive of state of mind with relation the alleged omissions."

The Ninth Circuit first held that the district court "erred in relying on the statistical significance standard" in concluding that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged materiality, finding that a court "cannot determine as a matter of law whether such links [between Zicam and anosmia] were statistically insignificant because the statistical significance is a question of fact."

Instead the Ninth Circuit said that the appropriate "fact-based inquiry" is (citing Twombley and its progeny) whether the complaint states a claim that is "plausible on its face" – and, with respect to the issue of materiality, whether "the possible link between Zicam and anosmia was information that a reasonable investor would have found significant."

After reviewing the plaintiffs’ allegations, the Court found that the complaints allegations were sufficient to meet the PSLRA’s pleading requirements for materiality and, citing Twombley, to "nudge" the plaintiffs’ claims "across the line from conceivable to plausible."

The Ninth Circuit further held, with reference to Tellabs standard for pleading scienter, that the inference that the defendants "withheld information intentionally or with deliberate recklessness is at least as compelling as the inference that [the defendants] withheld the information innocently."

In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit noted that the company’s disclosures were "misleading because [they] spoke of the risk of product liability actions without revealing that lawsuits had already been filed." The Ninth Circuit observed that the inference that "high level executives such as [the individual defendants] would know that the company was being sued in a product liability action is sufficiently strong to survive a motion to dismiss."

The Ninth Circuit also referenced the various customer complaints and academic studies the results of which were communicated to the company’s director of research and development.

Based on its conclusions about materiality and scienter, the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Matrixx case is interesting in a number of respects, not least of which is because the decision reversed the district court’s prior dismissal of the case, although it is certainly interesting in that respect as well.

Among other things, the decision is also interesting for its application of the Twombley "facial plausibility" standard to the question of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ allegations of materiality. In a prior post (here), I discussed the question whether the "facial plausibility" test of Twombley and its more recent companion case, Iqbal, would have much impact on securities cases, given the PSLRA’s heightened pleading standards. The Matrixx decision suggests that the Twombley standard could indeed impact securities cases, even with respect to elements of a securities claim for which heightened pleading standards are defined in the PSLRA, since the Ninth Circuit cited both the PSRLA’s materiality pleading requirements and Twobley in determining the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ allegations.

The further significance of the Ninth Circuit’s citation to Twombley is the fact that the court also found that the Twombley standard had been satisfied here. Though many objections to Twombley and Iqbal have been raised, the fact is that the "facial plausibility" standard can be satisfied and cases will still be going forward, notwithstanding the pleading standard articulated Twombley and Iqbal.

Another interesting thing about the Ninth Circuit’s decision is the way in which the court found that the scienter pleading requirements to have been satisfied, particularly with respect to the individual defendants. The court seems to have put great weight on the individual defendants’ positions, and was less focused on the question whether or not there were allegations of knowledge or awareness as to each of the individual defendants.

Thus, for example, with respect to the existence of product liability litigation, the court was willing to draw an inference of scienter as to the individual defendants because "high-level executives… would know" the company had been sued. – without apparent consideration of the question whether the individual defendants did know about the litigation, or even what the company’s practices were for circulating information about new litigation to the company’s senior officials.

Similarly, the allegations of scienter based on the alleged awareness of the existence of customer complaints and academic studies was found sufficient as to all three individual defendants, though the allegations refer only to communications of these matters to the company’s director of research. The court’s decision does not refer to what the other two individual defendants are alleged to have known, or even what they would have known in light of the company’s processes for communicating this kind of information internally.

If nothing else, the Ninth Circuit’s finding that the scienter allegations were sufficient represents a suggestion that in at least some circumstances (and in at least some courts) allegations that individual defendants held a certain office or position may be sufficient to support a finding of scienter, even where no supporting allegations about what the defendants know or what information they were provided or had access to.

Readers may be interested to know that on June 16, 2009, the FDA warned consumers (here) to stop using three Zicam intranasal products because the products may cause a loss of smell. As reflected here, a second securities class action lawsuit was filed after the company’s share price plunged following this announcement.

Iqbal on the Hill: Meanwhile, the Iqbal debate arrived on Capitol Hill this week, as the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties held hearings on October 27, 2009. The hearing was entitled "Access to Justice Denied – Ashcroft v. Iqbal." The Committee’s page about the hearing, including links to the witnesses’ testimony can be found here. An October 29, 2009 AmLaw Daily article by Alison Frankel about the hearings can be found here.

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

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Iqbal case earlier this year has generated a great deal of controversy and comment and even a proposal to overturn the decision legislatively. Iqbal does seem to be having an impact on a number of cases. An interesting question, however, is whether the Iqbal case will have an impact on federal securities cases, given that the securities laws already have their own separate heightened pleading standards. But a recent Eighth Circuit decision, applying Iqbal to affirm a lower court dismissal, suggests that Iqbal could indeed have an impact in damages actions under the federal securities laws.

Background

First, some background. Fed. R .Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires that a "claim for relief" must contain a "short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Historically, courts had come to use the shorthand phrase "notice pleading" to describe the requirements under this rule.

In the Supreme Court’s 2008 Twombley case (here), the Court said that in order to satisfy these pleading requirements, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."

In the 2009 Iqbal case, the claimant in a Bivens action had sought to argue that Twombley’s "facial plausibility" test should be limited to the pleadings made in the context of an antitrust dispute, as had been involved in Twombley. The Supreme Court held that the argument  that Twombley was limited to antitrust actions "is not supported by Twombley and is incompatible with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Twombley, the Iqbal court said, "expounded the pleading standard for all civil actions."

The Iqbal decision that the "facial plausibility" pleading sufficiency test applies to all federal civil actions has been the subject of a great deal of heated discussion. It has been criticized in many quarters. For example, in a September 3, 2009 article entitled "Plausibility Pleading Revisited and Revised: A Comment on Ashcroft v. Iqbal" (here), Boston University Law School Professor Robert G. Bone argues that Iqbal "takes Twombley’s plausibility standard in a new and ultimately ill-advised direction." Seton Hall Law Professor Edward Hartnett, less critical of the decision, argues in his recent paper (here) that Twobley and Iqbal can and should be "tamed."

Twombley and Iqbal have thir supporters. Fellow bloggers Mark Herrmann and James Beck argue on their Drug and Device Law Blog (here) that:

There’s nothing radical about requiring a plaintiff to have sufficient facts to plead a prima facie case before the courts will entertain the lawsuit – and that goes for all forms of litigation. It’s simply a construction of the language of Rule 8 "short and plan statement" that emphasizes "statement" a little more and "short" a little less. It’s about time, we think, that courts adopt a construction of the Rules that favors reduced, rather than expanded, litigation.

Whether Twombley and Iqbal are generally viewed as good or bad developments largely seems to depend on where your starting point is. But regardless of whether they are good or bad, the cases are having an impact in the lower courts, as Beck and Herrmann underscored in their more recent Drug and Device Law Blog post (here) detailing developments, by way of illustration, in recent medical device cases applying Twombley and Iqbal.

These practical impacts have registered with the plaintiffs’ bar, and indeed a September 21, 2009 Law.com article (here) discussed how civil rights and consumer groups and trial lawyers have been meeting to discuss ways to undo Iqbal. According to the article, Iqbal has already had a very significant impact – it has "already produced 1,500 district court and 100 appellate court decisions."

These groups have already managed to get proposed legislation introduced in Congress seeking to have Iqbal overturned. On July 22, 2009, Senator Arlen Specter introduced Senate Bill 1504, "Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009," which basically provides that courts shall not dismiss a complaint except under the notice pleading standards applicable under Supreme Court precedent prior to Twombley.

Whether this legislative effort will go anywhere remains to be seen. Congress has rather a full plate these days, and a bid to adjust a narrow feature of civil pleading standards may not make the cut. On a related note, according to a Point of Law blog post (here), there will be a House hearing on October 27, 2009 on the topic of "Access to Justice Denied – Ashcroft v. Iqbal."

Impact on Securities Cases?

Whatever the impact of Iqbal may be in other contexts, it has seemed an uncertain question whether Iqbal will prove to have a substantial impact in damages actions under the federal securities laws, due to the fact that the securities laws already have their own particularized pleading standards. Indeed, under the PSLRA, there are very specific requirements regarding what must be pleaded with respect to misleading statements or omissions and with respect to the required state of mind. The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in the Tellabs case even further underscored the degree of specificity required to satisfy the state of mind pleading requirements.

Given these very specific statutory requirements applicable to the federal securities laws, it could be argued that the more generalized pleading requirements expounded in Twombley and Iqbal might have relatively less impact in the context of a damages action under the federal securities laws. However, a recent decision from the Eighth Circuit suggests that Iqbal could have an impact in securities cases after all.

In an October 20, 2009 decision in McAdams v. McCord (here), the Eighth Circuit was reviewing an appeal of a district court’s dismissal of the securities class action lawsuit that have been filed against Moore Stephens Frost (MSF), the outside auditors of UCAP. The district court had held that the complaint "failed to plead with particularity the circumstances of MSF’s alleged fraud, as well as facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter."

The Eighth Circuit held that it "need not decide whether the complaint adequately states with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that MSF acted with scienter," because, the court held applying Iqbal to the loss causation pleading requirement under the Dura Pharmaceuticals case, that "the complaint fails to sufficiently plead loss causation."

The court referenced what it called the complaint’s "threadbare, conclusory allegation" that as a "direct and proximate cause" of defendants’ fraud the plaintiffs had lost their investments. The court noted that this allegation failed to "specify" how MSF’s alleged statements "as compared to the complaint’s long list of alleged misrepresentations and omissions by the executives, proximately caused the investors’ losses." The court noted further that the complaint "does not state the value of UCAP’s stock when the investors made their investments, or its value right before, or right after, the need for restatement was announced."

The Court concluded that without these allegations "the complaint does not show that the investors’ losses were caused by MSF’s misstatements," which "defeats the plausibility of the investors’ claims that MSF’s audit opinions …caused their losses."

Discussion

The Eighth Circuit’s decision in the McAdams case, in which the Eighth Circuit held, applying Iqbal, that the claimants’ loss causation allegations lacked "plausibility," shows that Iqbal could indeed have an impact on securities cases.

It is particularly interesting that the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal on the grounds of insufficient loss causation plausibility, while observing that it did not even need to reach the question whether the plaintiffs had plead scienter with sufficient particularity under the PSLRA. The conclusion suggests that Iqbal’s generalized pleading requirements must be considered analytically prior to the PSLRA’s more particularized requirements. And whether or not the Iqbal standard is to be viewed as prior, its "facial plausibility test" apparently applies to the elements required to state a cause of action under the federal securities laws, even those elements for which the PSLRA does not itself specify particularized pleading requirements.

In any event, the basic holding of the McAdams case that the complaint’s loss causation allegations must meet the Iqbal "facial plausibility" standard in order survive an initial motion to dismiss could be a valuable tool for defendants’ to use at the initial pleading stage. (Of course, many plaintiffs will include allegations in the complaint of the kind that the plaintiffs in the McAdams case had omitted, so the extent to which the McAdams decision will affect other cases could be limited – with the inclusion of seemingly minimal additional information about their alleged investment loss, plaintiffs could likely defeat a motion raising similar arguments.)

One question that may be of more interest to civil procedure buffs is whether it matters that in McAdams the court was considering a complaint to which (as the McAdams court itself noted) Rule 9(b) applied, rather than (or perhaps, in addition to) Rule 8. Rule 9(b) requires that fraud must be plead with "particularity." To my mind, it does not and should not matter whether the applicable pleading standard is under Rule 9 rather than under Rule 8, either way it would seem (as the McAdams court noted) that the Iqbal "facial plausibility" test should apply, although I would be interested to know if readers disagree.

One final thought about Iqbal itself. I tend to agree with the school of thought in favor the decision. I recognize the argument that the "facial plausibility" test does not appear in the Fed. R. Civ. P., but then neither does the phrase "notice pleading." And I find myself puzzled by the critics of Iqbal – are they suggesting that complaints that are not facially plausible should be allowed to go forward? In any event, under Rule 15 (a)(2), courts are admonished to allow pleading amendments "freely when justice so requires," so plaintiffs will typically have at least a second crack at trying to present a "facially plausible" complaint.

In any event, based on the McAdams decision at least, Iqbal appears to represent yet another factor raising the hurdle that plaintiffs’ initial pleads must overcome in order to survive a motion to dismiss in a securities class action lawsuit. Clearly, the accumulating number of substantive and procedural developments increasingly favors the defendants in these cases.

Very special thanks to Tom Gorman of the SEC Actions Blog for his recent post (here) discussing the McAdams case.

More About Loss Causation: An October 21, 2009 memo entitled "Loss Causation Challenges in Securities Cases" (here) by Michael Smith and William Hutchinson of the King & Spaulding law firm surveys recent case law regarding loss causation issues under the federal securities laws.

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