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

In a settlement that has a number of interesting features, Satyam Computer Services, an Indian technology outsourcing company, has agreed to pay $125 million to settle the consolidated securities class action litigation pending against the company in Southern District of New York.

The only settling defendant is the company itself, which is now known as Mahindra Satyam. The settlement does not resolve claims against the individual defendants, including certain of the company’s former directors and officers, or against PricewaterhouseCoopers-related entities.

The settlement is subject to court approval, as well as other regulatory and governmental approval. A copy of February 16, 2011 settlement stipulation can be found here.

Background

Satyam was quickly dubbed the "Indian Enron" when it was revealed in January 2009 – in a stunning letter of confession from the company’s founder and Chairman -- that more than $1 billion of revenue that the company had reported over several years was fictitious. Investors immediately filed multiple securities class action lawsuits in the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint alleges that in addition to fabricating revenues senior company officials siphoned off vast sums from the company to entities owned or controlled by the Chairman and members of his family. The defendants include ten former directors and officers of the company; certain entities affiliated with the company’s chairman and individuals associated with those companies; and certain PwC-related entities.The defendants filed motions to dismiss.

The Satyam Settlement

In the settlement stipulation, Satyam has agreed to pay $125 million into a settlement fund. The company, which is apparently funding the settlement entirely out of its own resources, is the only settling defendant. The claims against all of the other defendants remain pending.

In addition to the $125 million, Satyam also agreed to pay the settlement class 25% of any recovery the company may obtain against the PwC entities, in the event the company in its sole discretion decides to pursue a claim against the PwC entities.

There amount of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees specified or agreed to in the stipulation, however the settlement papers reflect that plaintiffs’ counsel intends to seek a fee award of 17% of the settlement fund, as well as out of pocket expenses not to exceed $2.5 million.

Lead counsel also intends to seek court approval to establish out of the settlement fund a $1 million litigation fund "to help pay for future litigation costs incurred during the continued litigation of the Action against the Non-Settling Defendants."

Discussion

There are a number of interesting things about this settlement, the first being its size. Even though it is only a partial settlement, the $125 million settlement amount would be tied for 69^th on the list of the all-time largest securities class action settlements.

Another very interesting feature of the settlement is that it resolves only the claims against the company – leaving all of the company’s former directors and offices in the lawsuit. These individuals include not only the company’s former Chairman and founder and his family members who were at the center of the scandal, but also the various outside individuals who were serving on the company’s board while the alleged fraud was going on. The suggestion seems to be that the current company management is prepared to leave all of the former board members hanging out there on their own.

The fact that the company apparently is also funding this settlement out of its own resources is also interesting. Shortly after the scandal broke, there were press reports that the company carried $75 million of D&O insurance. Of course, these press reports may have been mistaken. Or perhaps the insurance was unavailable to the company, either because the insurance did not include entity coverage or because the carriers are asserting coverage defenses. The possible availability of insurance raises the question whether the coverage is available for the individuals’ defense or any future settlements (assuming it has not already been depleted or exhausted by prior defense fees).

Another interesting component of the settlement is the composition of the settlement class to which the parties stipulated as part of the settlement. The class includes not only investors who bought the company’s American Depositary Shares on the NYSE, but also U.S. residents who bought ordinary company shares on Indian stock exchanges.

The interesting question is whether, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, the U.S.-based investors who purchased their shares on the Indian exchange actually have claims they can assert under U.S. securities laws. (Indeed, the settlement stipulation expressly notes that the defendants had supplemented their pending motions to dismiss, seeking in reliance on Morrison to dismiss the claim of the U.S. residents who purchased their shares on the Indian exchanges.)

Several U.S. district courts (refer for example here and here) have already ruled that Morrison precludes Section 10(b) claims of so-called "f-squared claimants" – that is, U.S. residents who bought share of non-U.S. companies outside of the U.S. Nevertheless, the proposed settlement class includes these f-squared claimants. In other words, the proposed settlement class includes claimants who may or may not have the ability to assert claims under Section 10(b) in light of Morrison. Indeed, as the remaining defendants might even succeed in having those claimants’ claims dismissed as the case goes forward.

However, in recognition of the hurdles that these investors face, the settlement agreement provides that the U.S. investors who bought their shares on the Indian exchange will not receive the same proportion of compensation as the ADS investors.

As Alison Frankel notes in her February 17, 2011 Am Law Litigation Daily article about the settlement (here), common share holders will take a 90 percent discount on their potential recovery, by comparison to the ADS investors. The agreement states that this discount is "in recognition of additional legal hurdles facing U.S. residents who purchased Satyam ordinary shares on markets outside the United States in seeking to recover under federal securities laws." The estimated average recovery would be $1.36 per ADS and 6 cents per ordinary share.

But though the proposed class definition arguably includes a class of claimants broader than Morrison might prescribe, the proposed class does not include non-U.S. residents who purchased their Satyam shares on the Indian exchanges. These investors’ claims apparently are not resolved or even addressed by this settlement.

Another interesting feature of this settlement is the extent to which it seemingly encourages further litigation against the Non-Settling parties. The settlement not only includes the company’s agreement to pay the settlement class 25% of any recovery the company may obtain from the PwC entities, but it also includes a $1 million war chest for the claimants to use in order to continue their claims against the other defendants. This settlement might be good news for Satyam and for the settlement class, but it seems like bad news for the remaining defendants and for the PwC entities.

In other words, the company may be settling, but this case is far from over.

Bankruptcy and D&O Insurance: On March 2, 2011 at from 1:00 pm EST to 2:30 EST, the Torts and Insurance Practice Section of the American Bar Association will be sponsoring a teleconference on the topic of "D&O Insurance in the Context of Bankruptcy." The teleconference will feature a number of distinguished speakers, including my good friend Perry Granof. Information about the teleconference can be found here.

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

As the details about the Satyam Computer Services scandal have emerged and the U.S. securities lawsuits have begun to flood in, questions have also arisen about Satyam’s D&O insurance. At least some of the questions are answered in a January 8, 2009 article in The Economic Times (India’s largest financial daily) entitled "Satyam Scam Triggers Biggest D&O Claim" (here).

According to the article, Satyam carries a $75 million D&O insurance program led by Tata AIG, which is a joint venture of Tata Group and American International Group. The article also states that the Satyam claim "could trigger one of the largest Directors and Officers insurance claims in India."

Of course, knowing the limits of liability under Satyam’s insurance program does not necessarily tell you how much insurance ultimately will be available to defend and indemnify Satyam and its directors and officers. In a case where the company’s Chairman has publicly admitted fraud, the applicable terms and conditions will be absolutely critical. I discuss below a couple of issues that seem likely to arise.

The Fraud Exclusion

Without knowing more about the specific terms applicable under Satyam’s D&O insurance program, it is difficult to say anything with certainty. However, at least in the U.S., D&O insurance policies do not cover fraudulent, criminal or intentional misconduct.

But, again in the U.S., these exclusions typically do not kick in until there has been an "adjudication." Even though Satyam’s Chairman has admitted cooking the books, he has not (yet) been convicted of anything, so to the extent the policy’s exclusions have an "adjudication" requirement, the exclusions would not apply, at least in the interim.

Moreover, a well-constructed U.S. policy would also contain a "severability of exclusions" provision so that even if an exclusion would apply to preclude coverage based on the Chairman’s misconduct, it would not apply to others who were uninvolved in the conduct. Of course, many questions are now being asked about who else at Satyam might have been involved in the fraudulent accounting. The Chairman’s letter sought to establish that other board members were unaware of the fraud.

A prior post discussing the "adjudicated fraud" exclusion can be found here. A separate post discussing an interim decision in the Refco matter and relating to the interaction of the exclusion and the funding of defense costs can be found here.

Application Misrepresentations?

Another insurance issue that likely will be raised is the question of policy rescission. Given the magnitude of the fraud and the apparent length of time during which it was going on, the question may be asked whether the policy was procured through misrepresentations in the application process.

Under the typical current D&O policy in the U.S., application misrepresentations can serve as a basis on which the carrier can rescind the policy only as to persons with knowledge of the misrepresentations and as to persons to whom that knowledge is imputed. A well-constructed U.S. policy will limit "imputation" so that innocent persons do not risk rescission of their coverage because of another’s misrepresentation. The imputation language used in Satyam’s policy could well be critical.

A prior post discussing D&O insurance policy rescission issues can be found here (refer especially to my "final thoughts" toward the end of the post).

I welcome any insight readers can provide about the provision of the typical D&O insurance policy in the Indian market, as well as any additional information anyone can supply about the Satyam program, particularly any additional carriers involved.

Very special thanks to loyal reader Aruno Rajaratnam for providing a copy of The Economic Times article as well as other information about Satyam.

Global Accounting Outlook = Bleak: Fitch's Ratings has issued a January 8, 2009 report entitled "Accounting and Financial Reporting: 2009 Global Outlook" (available here, registration required) with some very interesting observations about the year ahead for public company accountants. As the report states in its opening line, "these are indeed interesting times for accounting."

Among other things, the report notes the following with respect to the "going concern" questions that many companies and their accountants will face as the companies prepare their year-end 2008 financial statements:

The sharp decline in global debt and equity securities values and a very difficult credit environment have presented a unique set of chllenges to the interpretation and implementation of some pervasive accounting issues. An immediate question facing some companies preparing their full-year 2008 financial statements, is how best to justify a "going concern" basis, given the doubts some have about their abiltiy to refinance. Management statements on this issue should be required reading for investors and analysts. The determination of impairment charges on debt securities and the lack of clear-cut rules on the subject have pitted some issuers against their auditors. This is a particularly sensitive issue because profitability and regulatory capital adequacy are at state for many financial institutions.

Obviously, insurance companies are among the companies for whom the determination of impairment charges will be particularly sensitive. And among others who will want to read companies' managers' statements on the "going concern" issue, in addition to investors and analysts, are D&O underwriters.

A news article describing the Fitch report can be found here. Special thanks to a loyal reader for sending along the news article and a link to the report.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I encourage those that questioned my inclusion of FCPA issues in my list of top ten 2008 development to refer to the January 5, 2009 memo from the Gibson Dunn law firm entitled "2008 Year-End FCPA Update" (here).

As the memo puts it, 2008 was ‘by any measure …a monster year in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (‘FCPA’) enforcement." The memo goes on to note that "2008 saw the FCPA’s enforcement regime mature like never before," adding that "there were no unimportant FCPA enforcement actions this year."

The memo highlights several enforcement trends. First, with particular emphasis on the recent massive Siemens FCPA fine, the report notes the trend toward escalating corporate financial penalties.

The memo reports that the Siemens fine eclipsed the prior record FCPA fine by nearly twenty times; in fact, the memo notes, the Siemens fine substantially exceeds "the aggregate of every dollar collected by the U.S. government in connection with FCPA settlements over the statute’s thirty-one year history." The memo also emphasizes the staggering costs that Siemens incurred in connection with the investigation. The memo notes that the company’s investigation and corporate remediation costs exceeded $1 billion.

To show that "enormous foreign prior settlements are certain not to be a fluke of 2008," the memo cites ABB’s recent announcement that it has reserved $850 million for potential costs associated with the continuing investigation of alleged improper practices.

The memo also addresses a theme I have frequently sounded (most recently here), that FCPA enforcement actions increasingly are accompanied by follow-on civil litigation. The memo notes that FCPA investigations increasingly have "spurred a variety of collateral civil suits, including securities fraud actions, shareholder derivative suits, and lawsuits initiated by foreign governments or business partners." Companies "can no longer assume that making peace with DOJ and the SEC will end the pain associated with their alleged FCPA violations."

With respect to securities litigation following on after FCPA investigations, the memo notes that "in recent years, courts have been trending towards finding that plaintiffs adequately alleged false or misleading statements, thereby meeting the heightened pleading standard under the PSLRA." However, as I noted in a recent post (here), the Ninth Circuit in the InVision Technologies case made it clear that "there are limits on the types of allegations that will meet this threshold."

The memo also reproduces an interesting bar graph showing the foreign jurisdictions having the "dubious distinction of being the most-referenced setting for FCPA allegations." Among the top countries are Nigeria, Iraq, China, Vietnam and Ecuador.

The memo, which is detailed and interesting, identifies a number of other important trends, including the increased internationalization of foreign anti-corruption endorsement.

Answer: Less Than One Day: In my January 7, 2009 post (here) regarding the accounting scandal dramatically disclosed at the Indian technology company Satyam Computer Services, I raised the question of how long it would take for plaintiffs’ lawyer to initiate a securities class action lawsuit against the company in a U.S. court.

The answer is – less than a single day.

Even before the close of business on January 7, plaintiffs’ lawyers announced (here) that they had filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the company’s ADRs (which are traded, or at least were traded, on the NYSE) against the company and certain of its directors and officers. A copy of one of the Satyam complaints that has been filed can be found here.

The well of scandal is an ever-flowing stream, providing the plaintiffs’ bar with a constantly replenished source of new litigation targets. So much for the notion that the pool of potential securities litigation defendants is "fished out."

New Year’s Resolution: Some people resolve lose more weight, other people resolve to get more exercise. Even though I need to spend more time fooling around with technology like I need a hole in my head, my New Year’s resolution is to try to get more plugged into the new social media.

Along those lines, you will note that I have added a button in the right hand sidebar that links to my LinkedIn profile. I encourage everyone to check out my profile by clicking on the button. I would also like to strongly encourage other readers that are active on LinkedIn to "connect" with me. I am still trying to figure out what the site will lead to, but at least if readers of this blog start connecting we can try to work through it together.

In addition, I have recently signed up for Twitter. Again, I am still feeling my way along with the new technology, but I will say that I have used Twitter several times over the past couple of days to alert "followers" (in effect, subscribers) to developments before I had a chance to get a post up on my blog. For example, as soon as I saw the link to Cornerstone’s year end report, I posted a "tweet" on Twitter. I also added a "tweet" about the new Satyam lawsuit as soon as I learned about it. I encourage readers who may also be active on Twitter to sign up for future updates.

Finally, I welcome readers’ thoughts and comments on these new media. As I said, I am still trying to figure all of this out, and I am particularly interested in thoughts and comments about how best to take advantage of these new technologies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

2009 has barely just begun but the year’s first corporate scandal, which has quickly been dubbed the "Indian Enron," has already arrived. Your radar might not have picked this one up yet, but you may want to take a quick look at today’s news involving Indian information technology company Satyam Computer Services, Ltd.

As reported in articles on Bloomberg (here) and the New York Times website (here), Satyam’s Chairman, Ramalinga Raju, has sent a January 7, 2009 letter of resignation to the company’s Board of Directors, with copies the Bombay stock exchanges, in which he reveals, as the Times puts it, that "the company’s financial position had been massively inflated during the company’s expansion from a handful of employees into an outsourcing giant with 53,000 employees and operations in 66 countries."

It appears that as much as 53.6 billion rupees (or about $1.04 billion) in cash that the company reported as of the end of the second quarter that ended in September, was nonexistent. The company’s reported second quarter revenue was actually 21 billion rupees, rather than the reported 27 billion rupees.

The Chairman’s letter, which can be found here, is an absolutely extraordinary document.

With "deep regret and a tremendous burden," the Chairman details the specific balance sheet accounts that were inflated due to "non-existent cash." The letter further explains how the balance sheet "gap" came to exist – it is, the Chairman reports, "purely on account of inflated profits over a period of the last several years."

The letter states matter-of-factly that "what started as a marginal gap between the actual operating profit and one reflected in the books of accounts continued to grow over the years. It has attained unmanageable proportions as the size of the company operations grew." The letter goes on to describe how the company strained to maintain the gap over time." The letter further describes the company’s attempts to work out of its dilemma by merging with other companies, which the letter describes as the "last attempt to fill the fictitious assets with real ones." (The mergers fell through.)

It was, the letter says "like riding a tiger without knowing how to get off without being eaten."

In an apparent bid to exculpate himself, the Chairman notes that neither he nor the company’s Managing Director (or their spouses) sold any shares, nor have the taken "one rupee/dollar from the company" and they have not "benefitted in financial terms on account of the inflated results."

The Chairman graciously emphasizes that none of the past or present board members "had any knowledge of the situation in which the company is placed." After identifying each of these individuals by name, he states that none of them "were aware of the real situation as against the books of accounts."

The letter concludes with a description of the corrective actions the company will now take, an apology, and the Chairman’s resignation.

The company, whose name means "truth" in Sanskrit, trades its shares on the Bombay stock exchange and also has American Depository Receipts that trade on the New York Stock Exchange. Its shares also trade on the Euronext exchange.As of the close of trading on January 6, 2009, the company had a market capitalization of over $3 billion. However, the shares plunged 77% in trading on the Bombay exchange today.

The Times reports that the company is audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

According to a January 7, 2009 commentary on the Wall Street Journal’s website (here), Satyam’s scandal is already being called "India’s Enron." Perhaps that comparison was inevitable, but I think the scandal, particularly the Chairman’s extraordinary letter of confession, has overtones of the Madoff affair.

How long do you suppose it will be before a securities class action lawsuit is initiated in the U.S.?

UPDATE: The answer to this question is: less than one day. Plaintiffs' lawyers January 7, 2009 press release about their newly filed securities lawsuits agasint Satyam and certain of its directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of the American ADRs can be found here. The case was filed in the Southern District of New York.

FURTHER UPDATE: A copy of one of the Satyam complaints can be found here.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for supplying a copy of the Chairman’s letter.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link