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

The question of insurance coverage for the attorneys’ fees of Allen Stanford and his co-defendants is at issue in a three-day bench trial before Southern District of Texas Judge Nancy Atlas that began on Tuesday, August 23, 2010 in Houston.

Stanford and several other individuals have been criminally charged with financial fraud in connection with the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group. The criminal trial is set to commence in January 2011. Stanford and several of the other individuals are also defendants in an SEC enforcement action as well as numerous other civil proceedings.

Stanford Financial had $100 million in D&O insurance. The primary policy contains a money laundering exclusion that the insurers contend precludes coverage under the policies. The money laundering exclusion specifies that it does not apply "until such time as it is determined that the alleged act or acts did in fact occur."

In a January 26, 2010 opinion, Southern District of Texas Judge David Hittner entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the insurers from "withholding payment" of defense expenses from four individuals (including Allan Stanford), as discussed here.　

In a March 15, 2010 opinion (about which refer here), the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the district court, concluding that the money laundering exclusion’s "in fact" wording required a judicial determination to establish whether or not the exclusion had been triggered, but also concluding that this determination can be made in a separate proceeding such as a coverage action.

Based upon the trial that began on Tuesday in Houston, the court will determine whether or not the money laundering exclusion has been triggered, and therefore whether the insurers have any obligations to pay the defendants’ attorneys fees or other amounts on the defendants’ behalf under the policies.

According to news reports, there were a number of interesting developments in the first day of trial.

First, the lawyer for Laura Pendergest-Holt, Stanford Financial’s former Chief Investment Officer, told the court that Pendergest-Holt had entered a settlement with the insurers. The details of the settlement were not disclosured.

Second, in response to a question from Judge Atlas as to where the policy’s unusual definition of "money laundering" had originated, the lawyer for the insurers told the court that the language had been in prior policies through several renewals, but the language originally "been brought to the contract negotiation …by Stanford’s insurance broker." The insurers’ lawyer said that the insurer did not plan to offer a witness on the origins of the language.

Judge Atlas commented: "All I can say, it’s turning out not to be such a bargain."

Third, the witnesses are unlikely to testify during the coverage trial, given the risks that would entail for the criminal case. Judge Atlas said she will not determine yet whether she will draw an adverse inference about the individuals’ guilt from the individuals’ decision not to testify during the coverage case.

Finally, the insurers revealed that to date the insurers had advanced over $15 million dollars to pay for attorneys’ fees on behalf of the individuals and other insured persons under the policy.

Think Your Commute is Bad?: According to an August 24, 2010 Wall Street Journal article, a 60-mile traffic jam near Beijing "could last until mid-September." Traffic has been backing up since earlier this month due to construction on the Beijing-Tibet highway. Traffic is now backed up "almost all the way to Inner Mongolia."

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

Within the space of just a few days, two federal appellate courts – the Fifth and Sixth Circuits – issued separate opinions consider D&O insurers’ obligations to advance defense expenses. The Fifth Circuit entered its March 15, 2010 decision in the high-profile Stanford Financial insurance coverage dispute. The Sixth Circuit’s March 11, 2010 opinion was entered in an insurance coverage dispute involving Abercrombie & Fitch and a rather unusual set of circumstances surrounding the company’s D&O insurance policies. The Sixth Circuit’s opinion was also accompanied by a rather spirited dissent. Both decisions are interesting and provide illuminating perspective on D&O policy interpretation.

The Fifth Circuit’s Stanford Financial Decision

The March 15 Opinion

The Fifth Circuit’s March 15, 2010 opinion (here) arises out of the expedited appeal of Stanford Financial’s D&O insurers to the January 26, 2010 opinion of Southern District of Texas Judge David Hittner entering a preliminary injunction prohibiting the insurers from "withholding payment" of defense expenses from four individuals (including Allan Stanford) who face SEC and criminal actions in connection with the Stanford Financial scandal. My prior discussion of Judge Hittner’s ruling can be found here. 

Stanford Financial had $100 million D&O insurance. The primary policy contained a fraud exclusion which does not apply absent a "final adjudication" that the prohibited conduct had occurred. The policy also contains a "money laundering" exclusion, which the insurers contend precludes coverage. The money laundering exclusion specifies that it does not apply "until such time as it is determined that the alleged act or acts did in fact occur."

In its March 15 opinion, the Fifth Circuit considered whose determination of the facts this exclusionary provision requires. The court emphasized that the provision does not specify that the insurer was to make this determination. The court commented that "while there is nothing remarkable about an insurer reserving the right to make a unilateral coverage decision, it is equally unremarkable to require an insurer to be explicit when doing so, rather than leaving the reader to ponder the word ‘it’."

The Fifth Circuit also considered the wording contrast between the fraud exclusion, which requires a "final adjudication," and the money laundering exclusions "in fact" wording, and observed that the difference between the two exclusions’ wordings boils down to the judicial proceeding in which the determination is to be made. The "final adjudication" provision, the Fifth Circuit reasoned, requires the determination to be made in the underlying proceeding, but the money laundering exclusion’s "in fact" determination wording requires a judicial determination but allows that determination to be made in a separate proceeding such as a coverage action.

The Fifth Circuit also held, in contrast to Judge Hittner’s ruling at the district court level, that the evidence relevant to this determination is not limited to the "eight corners" of the insurance policy and the underlying complaint; rather, the policy’s terms expressly contemplate the consideration of "extrinsic evidence" in the determination of policy coverage.

The Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the district court, with the added proviso that a judge not involved in the underlying criminal proceedings should consider the insurance coverage issues. The remanded case will be the "collateral vehicle" in which coverage is to be determined.

In the interim, until the determination, the insurers are obligated to advance defense costs until the merits are resolved. To that extent, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining the insurers from withholding payment of defense expenses until the judicial determination.

However, the determination cannot be "final" until the underlying proceeding is resolved, because "a determination of the facts on remand unfavorable to the executives would have to be reconsidered should the executives be cleared of all charges."

Discussion

The money laundering exclusion in the Stanford Financial D&O insurance policy is an unusual provision not found in many D&O insurance policies, and the wording arguably also reflects an unusual and awkward formulation. As the Fifth Circuit said of its own work and of the policy, its construction "is a sensible construction of an awkwardly drafted instrument."

But the Fifth Circuit’s analysis represents more than just a detailed exposition of an awkwardly worded and atypical clause. Most D&O policies have conduct exclusions requiring "determinations" as a prerequisite to the exclusions’ application to a particular set of circumstances. The Fifth Circuit’s orderly analysis of the determination processes implied by various policy formulations will undoubtedly inform future judicial consideration of the "determination" language found in the more typical D&O policy exclusions.

In particular, the Fifth Circuit’s analysis implying a requirement of a judicial determination in the first instance, and precluding unilateral insurer determinations unless expressly provided for, will illuminate coverage analysis whenever these types of conduct exclusions are at issue.

And in the underlying cases, the individual defendants will have their defense expenses advanced, for now, on an interim basis, until there is a determination in the collateral coverage case, and subject to the outcome of the underlying proceedings. Depending on how all of these circumstances unfold, the coverage dispute could go on for a considerable time. For now at least the individuals will be able to fund their defenses.

The Sixth Circuit’s Abercrombie Opinion

The March 11 Decision

In its March 11, 2010 opinion in the Abercrombie & Fitch coverage action, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that Abercrombie’s D&O insurer must advance defense expense incurred in connection with the underlying claim. The Sixth Circuit’s opinion can be found here.

The coverage dispute arose out of an unusual sequence of events. Abercrombie had been insured by a $10 million D&O insurance policy that expired on September 1, 2005 (hereafter, the predecessor policy). On September 2, 2005, Abercrombie and certain of its directors and officers were sued in a securities class action lawsuit. Subsequently derivative suits were also filed and an SEC investigation ensued. On September 30, 2005, Abercrombie exercised its right under the predecessor policy to purchase one-year extended reporting period coverage.

Abercrombie also purchased a successor D&O insurance policy with a different insurer with a policy period incepting on September 1, 2005. The successor policy was amended to specify that the successor policy is expressly excess to the predecessor policy for any claims made regarding acts occurring prior to September 1, 2005. The parties to the coverage dispute agree that if the successor policy lacked this excess provision, the predecessor and successor policies would both be primary and would pay loss for the claim (including defense expense) on a pro rata basis.

The predecessor insurer contended that in this deal shifting the burden to provide primary coverage exclusively to the predecessor insurer, Abercrombie violated the policy’s cooperation clause, which specifies that "in the event of a claim," the policyholder "will do nothing that will prejudice [the insurer’s] position or its potential or actual rights of recovery."

The Sixth Circuit rejected the predecessor insurer’s argument, holding that the "purpose" of the cooperation clause, including its "no prejudice" provision, was to "enumerate the parties’ respective rights and obligations when a claim was made against an insured," but it "does not address the parties’ rights and obligations when a policy has elapsed, a claim has been made against a (formerly) insured, and the insured is deciding whether to elect – and how to structure – extended insurance coverage."

The Sixth Circuit added that "there is nothing about" the cooperation clause that "prevents Abercrombie from making fiscally driven business decisions, even if such a decision is unanticipated by an existing or past insurer." The Sixth Circuit also adopted the district court’s statement that it is an "unreasonable interpretation" of the cooperation clause "to find that it requires Abercrombie to structure its insurance needs based not on its own needs and its own best interests, but rather to minimize the insurers’ potential exposure."

Judge Kethledge’s Dissent

Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge dissented. He emphaszied that the successor policy incepted on September 1 and as originally written was primary, and in fact, Abercrombie first reported the September 2 claim to the successor insurer. Then on September 29, Abercrombie elected discovery coverage, which Judge Kethledge noted "seemed a strange thing to do," since the $820,000 extended reporting period coverage was seemingly duplicative of the coverage in place under the successor policy.

Abercrombie was, Judge Kethledge wrote, "behind the scenes" negotiating with the successor insurer, for the successor insurance to be excess to the predecessor insurer’s coverage. It was not until November 22, 2005 that the successor policy was endorsed to make the successor policy expressly excess.

The effect of these changes, Judge Kethledge noted, was "retroactively to foist" on the predecessor insurer "the entire burden of coverage for the claim up to the $10 million policy limit." The reason Abercrombie did that, and was willing to pay the $820,000 premium for the extended reporting period coverage, was that in exchange the successor insurer waived its $2 million retention for the securities claims and promised not to increase Abercrombie’s premium for the following renewal.

Judge Kethledge viewed these events as having "prejudiced" the predecessor insurer in violation of the "no prejudice" provision in the cooperation clause, because it extinguished the predecessor insurer’s right to collect half of the claims costs from the successor insurer. Judge Rutledge noted that the "very purpose" of Abercrombie’s post claim action was to "increase [the predecessor’s] liability by $5 million and to extinguish its contribution claim for that amount." Judge Rutledge found the no prejudice clause’s requirement that the policyholder "do nothing" to prejudice that predecessor to be unambiguous and to clearly govern these circumstances.

Discussion

What makes this situation so awkward is that Abercrombie’s negotiations with the successor insurer took place after the claim arrived. The opinion is not sufficiently clear on this point, but it seems as if at the time of the September 1, 2005 renewal the successor insurer competed to move onto the account and then got smacked by a claim airmailed in the second day it was on the policy.

It isn’t clear who initiated the negotiations, but the successor insurer was bargaining to reduce its exposure to the walk in claim. Reading between the lines, the predecessor insurer’s gripe is not with Abercrombie but with the successor insurer, for (as Judge Kethledge put it) "foisting" the claim on the predecessor insurer.

The deal Abercrombie and the successor insurer struck clearly benefited both of them – the successor insurer reduced its claim expense (for a claim that was clearly made during its policy period), and Abercrombie was able to obtain valuable concessions.

I can certainly see why the predecessor insurer objected under these circumstances. The question is whether as a matter of contractual rights and duties (as opposed to more basic notions of fair play) the detrimental impact of the successor insurer’s deal with Abercrombie represents the kind of "prejudice" that violates the provisions of the cooperation clause.

On the one hand, as a result of the deal, the predecessor insurer was obligated to do nothing more than it was otherwise obligated to do under the extended reporting period coverage, which all agree that Abercrombie was entitled to purchase, even if it did so after the claim came in.

On the other hand, the predecessor insurer’s rights and obligations under its policy also include the right to proceed against alternative sources of recovery. Abercrombie’s entry into the deal with the successor insurer compromised the predecessor insurer’s rights and it did so after the claim had come in. You can certainly see the predecessor insurer’s argument that this violated the requirement that the policy "do nothing" after a claim to prejudice the predecessor insurer’s right of recovery.

The majority found that there is nothing in the policy to prevent Abercrombie from structuring its insurance according to its own interests. There is certainly nothing here to suggest that Abercrombie did anything to prejudice the underlying claim. Moreover, there is nothing about the "no prejudice" provision that requires a policyholder to subordinate its interests to those of the insurer, and that consideration seems particularly relevant after a policy’s expiration.

In the end we may all nod sympathetically in response to the plight of the predecessor insurer here. Our sympathetic nods, however, reflect the sentiment expressed in the words of Judge Keithridge’s dissent: "What is legal is sometimes different than what is right."

And Finally: "Cigarettes are very like weasels – perfectly harmless unless you put one in your mouth and try to set fire to it." Boothby Graffoe.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Stanford Financial Group’s D&O insurer may advance the individual directors’ and officers’ defense expenses without violating the court’s receivership order, according to an October 9, 2009 ruling by Northern District of Texas Judge David Godbey. A copy of Judge Godbey’s ruling can be found here.

As detailed in a prior post (here), the insurer had been prepared to begin advancing defense expenses of Stanford Group’s former CFO, Laura Pendergest-Holt, subject to a reservation of its rights to later deny coverage under the policy if circumstances should warrant. However, before the insurer began advancing these amounts, the Stanford group receiver had notified the receiver that if the insurer advanced Pendergest-Holt’s defense expenses, the receiver would seek to have the insurer held in contempt of court for violating the court’s receivership and asset freeze orders.

The receiver asserted that the proceeds of the D&O insurance policies are "receivership assets" within the meaning of Judge Godbey’s prior receivership and asset freeze orders. The receiver also argued that his right to the proceeds "supersedes" the rights of insureds under the policy.

Pendergest-Holt filed a motion in the SEC enforcement proceeding (here) seeking a judicial clarification that the receivership order does not apply to the D&O policy proceeds, and alternatively seeking authorization for the disbursement of the proceeds for payment of her defense expense.

The insurer itself had also inquired of the court whether it could advance the defense expenses without "running afoul" of the receivership order. However, the insurer, which has separately filed an action seeking a judicial declaration that the Stanford receivership is not entitled to payment of claims as a result of the operation of policy exclusions, did not request the court in the SEC enforcement proceeding to decide whether or to what extent any insured is entitled to coverage—it sought only to determine whether the receivership order barred it from advancing the individuals’ defense fees.

In his October 9 ruling, Judge Godbey concluded that he did not need to determine whether or not the proceeds were receivership assets, because he concluded that he would exercise "equitable discretion" to permit the payment of defense costs "even if the proceeds were part of the receivership estate."

In deciding to exercise his discretion to allow the proceeds to be advanced for defense expenses, he noted that "there is no argument that the insurance proceeds are potentially tainted by fraud" and therefore "the Court has not duty to preserve them as such." As for the possibility that the insurance premiums might have been paid with "stolen money," he noted that while this might be "unjust and regrettable," that fact "would not entitle victims to proceeds of policies intended to pay defense costs."

With respect to the receiver’s argument that allowing policy proceeds to fund the individuals’ defense expense would "decrease the coverage dollars eventually available for distribution," Judge Godbey found that "the possibility that the D&O proceeds might one day be paid into the receivership does not justify denying the directors’ and officers’ claims." The judge noted that the receiver "has not yet tendered any claims against the Stanford entities to [the insurer] for a defense," noting further that even if it had, "it is not at all clear" that the insurer would ever pay a claim into the receivership, owing to the insurer’s policy defenses.

Finally, Judge Godbey found that the "interests of fairness" justify allowing the individuals to access the insurance proceeds. The receivership’s potential claims are "speculative" while the individuals "expected that D&O proceeds would afford a defense" and the "potential harm to them if denied is not speculative but real and immediate: they might be unable to defense themselves."

Judge Godbey emphasized that in his ruling that his prior orders the insurer from disbursing policy proceeds to fund the individuals’ defense, he was not holding that any defendant "is entitled to have its defense costs paid by D&O proceeds." Moreover, Judge Godbey emphasized that his October 9 ruling does not authorize the insurer "to pay any claims other than defense costs."

Though Judge Godbey ruled only on Pendergest-Holt’s motion, his ruling expressly "extends to any covered officer or director whose claim is approved" by the insurer. Judge Godbey’s ruling seemingly applies to R. Allen Stanford himself, at least to the extent that the ruling represents a determination that the court’s prior receivership orders are no bar to the insurer advancing defense costs.

Whether the insurer will in fact advance Allen Stanford’s defense expenses may be yet to be determined, notwithstanding the October 9 ruling that the receivership order is no bar. An October 9, 2009 Bloomberg article (here) presumes that as a result of Judge Godbey’s ruling, Stanford is now entitled to have his attorneys’ fees advanced. Indeed, absent a judicial "determination" that Stanford in fact engaged in excluded misconduct, the basis on which the insurer might withhold advancement of Stanford’s defense expenses is not immediately apparent, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations against him.

The problem for everyone involved is the sheer number of persons who will seek to have their defense fees paid by the insurance and the extent of the collective defense expense. According to the Bloomberg article, as many as 60 Stanford officials are seeking to use the D&O insurance proceeds to pay their legal bills. Moreover, many of these individuals are involved in numerous civil and criminal proceedings.

The total amount of D&O insurance available is not entirely clear from the published reports. The Bloomberg article variously reports that the total insurance limits are "as much as $50 million" and "as much as $90 million" – kind of a big swing on a rather important detail. But the potential for defense expenses in catastrophic claims to substantial erode or even exhaust insurance programs of a similar magnitude has already been demonstrated in other claims (refer for example here).

Given the seriousness of the allegations and the multiplicity of proceeding involved, the various individuals’ collective defense expenses could quickly erode the available limits, particularly if, as seems possible, Stanford himself accesses the policy proceeds for his defense expenses.

It is worth noting that Judge Godbey exercised his discretion to allow the proceeds to be advanced toward the defense expenses, notwithstanding the Stanford entities’ potential claims, even though this policy reportedly lacked a "priority of payments" provision, which would have given the individual defendants priority to the policy proceeds over the entity, as a matter of policy language. As discussed in an October 4, 2009 Business Insurance article (here), this type of provision is now standard in most D&O insurance policies, and might have helped sort out this dispute, although in the end the outcome apparently would have been no different.

Special thanks to William Schreiner of the Zuckerman Spaeder law firm for providing me with a copy of Judge Godbey’s October 9 ruling.

No D&O Policy Coverage Where Claim Made Only Against the Company: In an October 8, 2009 opinion (here), the First Circuit held that a D&O insurance policy does not cover the settlement of a disability discrimination claim that did not name any individual directors and officers as defendants.

The Medical Mutual Insurance Company of Maine had been sued in an administrative proceeding by a former company executive who claimed that the company had discriminated against him due to his stroke-related disability. The administrative proceeding resulted in a "right to sue" letter, pursuant to which the former executive initiated a federal court discrimination lawsuit. Both the administrative complaint and the federal complaint named only the company itself as a defendant.

The company settled the lawsuit and sought coverage under the D&O insurance policy for $325,000 of the settlement amount. The D&O insurer denied coverage under its policy, arguing that because there had been no claim made against an individual director or officer, there was no coverage for the settlement under the policy’s "corporate reimbursement" coverage. (The opinion explains in footnote 3 that while the policy also separately provided "entity coverage" for "securities claims," the discrimination complaint was not a securities claim and accordingly the policy’s separate entity coverage provisions were not implicated.)

In an October 8 opinion written by Judge Bruce Selya, the First Circuit held that the company’s argument that the policy’s coverage extended to claims in which directors and officers were not named as defendants "would if accepted transmogrify D&O policies into comprehensive corporate liability policies," and that "such a transmogrification is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the D&O policy at issue."

The company had argued that the Policy’s claims made requirement had been satisfied because the underlying discrimination complaint consisted "largely of allegations of misconduct on the part of the directors and officers." The First Circuit held that "no matter what conduct the complaint describes, it is not a claim ‘made against’ any of the directors and officers."

The court went on to note that the policy’s separate requirements of both allegations of wrongful acts and for claims against insured persons "are complementary requirements and allegations of wrongful acts, without more, do not satisfy both."

The First Circuit’s opinion is arguably unremarkable, as D&O policies clearly and separately require both allegations of wrongful acts and claims to be made against insured persons.

The only puzzling thing to me about this case is why there was a D&O insurance dispute at all. The more natural place for the company to have looked for coverage for a claim like this is an Employment Practices Liability (EPL) insurance policy. EPL policies are designed to provide coverage for employment-related discrimination claims and generally provide coverage for claims against the insured organization.

Because I was curious, I ran down the parties’ appellate briefs on PACER. As it turns out, and as might have been predicted, the insured company did indeed also submit this claim to its EPL insurer.

As reflected in the D&O insurer’s appellate brief (here, at pages 4-6), not only did the EPL insurer provide the company with a defense for the underlying claim but it also paid $225,000 toward a total settlement amount of $500,000. The remaining $325,000 portion of the settlement amount for which the company sought coverage under the D&O policy represented the amount the company paid in resolution of the former executive’s unpaid contractual severance and benefits, for which the EPL carrier denied coverage under its policy.

So – that explains why this company was trying to stick what is rather obviously an EPL claim into the D&O policy, because there was a portion of the underlying EPL claim settlement for which the EPL policy did not provide coverage.

In any event, congratulations to my friend and former colleague Leslie Ahari, who represented the insurer in this action.

An October 12, 2009 Law.com article discussing the opinion can be found here. Special thanks to alert reader Marty Fox for providing me with a link to the Law.com article.

The Transmogrifier: For reasons unrelated to the merits or even the issues involved, the First Circuit’s opinion is one of my new favorites -- it is the first judicial opinion of which I am aware using the words "transmogrify" and "transmogrification." (Judge Selya, the opinion’s author, has a well-established reputation for using flamboyant and occasionally obscure language in his opinions.)

The word "transmogrify" in its various formulations was forever immortalized in the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip, in which Calvin turned an empty cardboard box into a "transmogrifier," capable of changing a person into "whatever you’d like to be."

There is a truly wonderful website here dedicated exclusively to the Calvin and Hobbes transmogrifier comic strips. And the excuse to be able to link here to the Transmogrifier site is more than enough justification for discussing the First Circuit opinion above.

Please click through to the site and enjoy the comic strips. They will make you smile. You too could consider turning yourself into a "500-story gastropod, a slug the size of the Chrysler Building." However, do keep in mind, as Calvin reminded Hobbes, that "transmogrification is a new technology."

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

Finacial Downturn, Not Fraud, Caused Plaintiffs’ Losses: In a ruling that is interesting for what it says about the relevance of the overall economic downturn to the wave of subprime lawsuits, on August 20, 2009, Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge R. Barclay Surrick, Jr. granted the motion to dismiss the securities fraud lawsuit that Luminent Mortgage Corporate had filed against Merrill Lynch and related entities. A copy of the August 20 opinion in the case, which was filed solely on behalf of the named plaintiffs and not as a class action, can be found here.

In August 2005, Luminent had acquired $26 million worth of the most junior tiers of Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates that were backed by nearly $1 billion of underlying mortgage loans. Merrill and the related defendant entities underwrote, issued and sold the securities. Luminent acquired the securities as part of a complex transaction whereby Merrill had financed Luminent’s purchase and then held the securities as collateral, while Luminent retained the rights to the income stream from the certificates. As the court later noted, Luminent’ purchase of securities from the most junior layers represented a riskier investment, a consideration that clearly affected the court’s analysis.

In April 2007, Luminent reviewed a sampling of some of the underlying mortgages and found that several of the mortgages deviated from information about the mortgages Luminent had been given prior to the purchase transaction. Luminent contended that a result of these deviations, which allegedly showed the mortgages to be less secure than had been represented prior to the purchase transaction, the underlying mortgages were experiencing an unexpectedly harsh rate of default and delinquencies.

The investment performance on the certificates was so poor that in September 2007, Luminent demanded rescission of its purchase. After the defendants refused to rescind, Luminent filed suit under a variety of legal theories, among other things alleging that the defendants, in violation of the federal securities laws, had misrepresented the composition of the pool of mortgages and had misrepresented their due diligence in scrutinizing and selecting the mortgages. The defendants moved to dismiss.

Judge Surrick granted the defendants’ motion on several grounds. First, he held that the complaint did not adequately plead scienter, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts sufficient to show that the discrepancies in the loan sample Luminent reviewed were the result of anything more than negligence. He also found that the plaintiffs’ theory of fraud was inconsistent with the fact that Merrill retained Luminent’s securities as collateral for the purchase loan, as a result of which any purported fraud would have harmed Merrill as well as Luminent.

Judge Surrick also granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled economic loss or loss causation. With respect to the economic loss issue, Judge Surrick found that Luminent did not hold the securities themselves and did not and could not have sold them at a loss, and he found further that the plaintiffs had failed to allege how their diminished income stream "can be distinguished from the market-wide losses in mortgage-backed securities generally."

This latter point, about the indistinguishability of the plaintiffs’ losses from market-wide losses is the most interesting aspect of Judge Surrick’s opinion. In similarly holding that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged loss causation, Judge Surrick cited Second Circuit case law to the effect that "when the plaintiff’s loss coincides with a marketwide phenomenon causing comparable losses to other investors, the prospect that plaintiffs’ loss was caused by fraud decreases."

Though the Second Circuit case from this cited language is drawn is a RICO case, Judge Surrick’s opinion is the second recent decision in which a district court granted a motion to dismiss in a subprime-related securities class action lawsuit on loss causation ground in reliance on this language. As noted here, on August 5, 2009, District of Massachusetts Judge Joseph L. Tauro also granted a motion to dismiss in the subprime-related securities class action lawsuit pending against First Marblehead, citing the identical language from the Second Circuit.

In convincing courts to grant their securities lawsuit dismissal motions on loss causation ground in reliance on the language drawn from a RICO case, defendants seem to have hit on a formula that appears to be drawing a sympathetic judicial response – that is, the argument is that if the plaintiffs were harmed at all, it was due only to the global financial crisis, not to the defendants’ alleged misconduct. Given the magnitude of the economic downturn, which was nearly universally unanticipated, this argument could well be extended to many if not most of the subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuits. The extent to which the defendants are able to exploit this argument in other cases remains to be seen, but for now defendants seem to have established a significant formula for dismissal motion success in these cases.

Luminent’s directors and officers were themselves a target of a subprime-related securities class action lawsuit. (Luminent itself filed for bankruptcy in September 2008.) As noted in detail here, the Luminent securities lawsuit settled in December 2008 based on defendants’ agreement to pay $8 million.

An August 28, 2009 article in the Legal Intelligencer about Judge Surrick’s opinion can be found here.

Citigroup Shareholders’ Derivate Lawsuit Dismissed: In an August 25, 2009 order (here) that largely tracks the earlier dismissal of the related Citigroup derivate lawsuit that had been pending on Delaware, Southern District of New York Judge Sidney Stein, applying Delaware law, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated Citigroup derivative lawsuit, holding that "the complaint fails to allege with specificity facts showing that plaintiffs are excused from pre-suit demand."

The plaintiffs had filed their complaints, later consolidated, against certain directors and officers of Citigroup, in connection with the billions of dollars Citigroup had lost from its investments in mortgages and mortgage-related securities. The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants should be liable for allowing Citigroup to invest in subprime mortgages; failing to disclose the extent of Citigroup’s exposure to subprime mortgages; approving a stock repurchase plan despite Citigroup’s subprime exposure; committing securities fraud for failed to adequately disclose the company’s subprime exposure; and engaging in or allowing others to engage in insider trading.

The allegations were similar to but not identical to the allegations in the separate Delaware derivate lawsuit. The Delaware action, for example and by contrast to the New York action, also contained a claim for waste based on the severance package awarded former CEO Charles Prince. The New York action, by contrast, contained claims not alleged in the Delaware suit based on securities fraud and insider trading allegations.

In concluding that the plaintiffs in the New York action had failed to establish that the pre-suit demand was excused, Judge Stein, applying Delaware law, largely followed (and expressly quoted from) Chancellor Chandler’s prior dismissal ruling in the Delaware case

The interesting part about Judge Stein’s opinion is with respect to the claims that were raised in the New York action but not in the Delaware lawsuit, and therefore with respect to which Chancellor Chandler did not rule in his earlier opinion.

Specifically, in concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that demand was excused with respect to their derivative claim for securities fraud, among other things, Judge Stein concluded that the plaintiffs had not established that the defendants "face a substantial likelihood of liability of securities fraud." (If the faced such liability, then the plaintiffs’ pre-suit demand would be excused as futile.)

Judge Stein found that the plaintiffs’ complaint "fails to allege with specificity which statements plaintiffs contend are fraudulent," and that it does not "allege with specificity why any alleged misstatement is fraudulent." In addition, Judge Stein held, citing Tellabs, that the complaint "does not state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendants acted with the required state of mind."

While Judge Stein found that the plaintiffs had failed to show a substantial likelihood of liability for securities fraud, he was careful to note that his ruling related only to the allegations in the consolidated derivative complaint in this case, and not to the securities fraud allegations that may have been raised in other lawsuits involving Citigroup and the same or related circumstances.

Judge Stein expressed skepticism that the plaintiffs could cure their pleading defects, and therefore rather than simply allowing the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, he required them to file a motion seeking leave. The plaintiffs’ motions are due September 14, 2009.

I have in any event added Judge Stein’s ruling to my register of subprime-related lawsuit dismissal motion grants and denials, which can be accessed here.

My prior post discussed the corporate waste allegations in connection with Charles Prince’s severance package in the Citigroup derivative lawsuit in Delaware, which allegations survived the initial motion to dismiss in that case, can be found here.

Plaintiffs Target Stanford Financial’s Outside Counsel: On August 27, 2008, former Stanford Financial investors claiming damages of over $7 billion filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas against former Stanford Financial outside counsel Thomas Sjoblum and his law firm, Proskauer Rose. A copy of the plaintiffs’ complaint can be found here.

In an apparent attempt to circumvent the limitations of the Stoneridge case, the plaintiffs filed their aiding and abetting claims against Sjoblum and his firm under the Texas securities laws rather than under the federal securities laws. The plaintiffs also assert alternative legal theories under Texas law, including civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting civil conspiracy and respondeat superior.

Given the revelations of former Stanford CFO James Davis at his August 27, 2009 guilty plea, it may not be surprising that Sjoblum has now gotten drawn into the case. (In an August 27, 2009 post, here, the WSJ.com Law Blog details Davis’s revelations.) Among other things, Davis, in the factual recitations in his plea agreement, suggested that Sjoblum, in concert with Stanford officials, made representations to the SEC that were contrary to information he had been given about the company and its operations, including problematic characterizations of the company’s portfolio.

The extent to which the plaintiffs will succeed in imposing gatekeeper responsibility on Sjoblum remains to be seen. The interesting thing to me about the lawsuit is how unusual it is for the lawyers to have gotten dragged into the litigation. There have been very few instances (if any) where lawyers have become targets in the litigation arising out of the various other Ponzi scheme scandals or any of the collapses associated with the subprime meltdown and credit crisis. To my knowledge neither the Madoff scandal nor the subprime litigation wave drawn in gatekeeper claims against the lawyers involved in the underlying transactions, even though gatekeeper claims have been an important part of both related categories of litigation (primarily with respect to auditors, offering underwriters and rating agencies).

I have in any event added the lawsuit against Sjoblum to my running register of the Stanford-related lawsuits, which can be accessed here.

An August 31, 2009 National Law Journal article about the Sjoblum lawsuit can be found here.

Upcoming Directors and Officers Liability Conference: On November 30, 2009 and December 1, 2009, I will be co-Chairing the American Conference Institute’s Fifteenth Annual Advanced Forum on D&O Liability, in New York City. The program features an all-star cast of experts in the field on a wide variety of critical topics in the area. A copy of the agenda and registration information can be found here.

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

In a move that recapitulates a classic dispute that has been brewing in bankruptcy court for years, the Stanford Financial Group receiver has asserted that the proceeds of Stanford’s D&O insurance policies are "receivership assets" and that his right to the proceeds "supersedes" the rights of insureds under the policy. Moreover, he has specifically threatened the insurer with "contempt" if it were to advance the individual insureds’ defense expenses. This sequence raises some fundamental issues about the D&O insurance structure and coverage and could highlight the importance of certain policy provisions that have recently become prevalent. It also raises some questions about some coverage structures.

Let me just say at the outset that I am not involved in this case and I do not intend in this post to express my opinions on the merits of the parties’ respective positions. Rather, the purpose of this post is simply to note the parties’ dispute and to make some observations.

According to a June 30, 2009 motion filed in the Stanford Financial SEC proceeding pending by former Stanford CEO Laura Pendergest-Holt (here), Stanford’s D&O insurance carrier had advised her that it would begin advancing her defense expense, subject to a reservation of its rights to deny coverage under the policy, on July 1, 2009. However, on June 25, 2009, the receiver sent the carrier a letter claiming that the D&O policy proceeds are "Receivership Assets" and that the receiver’s right to the proceeds "supersedes" the right of the other insureds under the policy. The carrier has withheld payment.

Pendergest-Holt’s motion seeks clarification that the receivership order does not apply to the D&O policy proceeds, and alternatively seeks authorization for disbursement of the D&O policy proceeds for payment of her defense expense. A host of other individuals claiming also to be insureds under Stanford’s D&O policy have sought to join in Pendergest-Holt’s motion, as reflected, for example, in the August 6, 2009 motion (here) filed by two former Stanford brokers. UPDATE: The receiver's response to Pendergest-Holt's motion can be found here. Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the response.

The question of ownership and entitlement to D&O policy insurance proceeds is a long-standing question in the bankruptcy context. This recurring question became even more troublesome after so-called "entity coverage" was added to most D&O policies in the mid-90s. This coverage extension provides liability protection for the company itself. In public company policy’s, the coverage is limited just to securities claims. However, for private companies, like Stanford, the entity coverage is usually more extensive.

As reflected in a memo (here) by my friend Kim Melvin of the Wiley Rein firm, courts have continued to struggle with these issues in bankruptcy, with some courts finding that the policy proceeds are not a part of the bankruptcy estate and therefore not subject to the stay in bankruptcy, and others reaching a contrary conclusion.

But these questions may take on a different light in the context of the question of the advancement of defense expenses subject to a carrier’s reservation of rights. In these circumstances, policy funds are advanced without a final determination of coverage (one that might, in fact, never come, if the claims are compromised). When it comes to the entitlement to advancement of defense expense, it could be argued that, all else equal, the various insureds’ rights -- including the bankrupt company’s rights – under the policy could be regarded equivalent.

These issues could be even further complicated where, as here, the bankrupt company faces a likelihood of its own third-party liability claims, in which the company will likely incur its own defense expense.

One critical element of this dispute may be the question whether Stanford’s policy has a priority of payments provision, which predetermines the order of payment under the policy. This type of provision has become fairly standard in recent years. These provisions generally specify that payment of loss will first be made under the policy’s A Side coverage (which provides individual protection in the event the corporate entity is unable to indemnify them due to insolvency or legal prohibition). These provisions confirm the parties’ intent that the D&O policy serves primarily to protect the individual directors and officers.

Whether Stanford’s policy has this type of provision, and if so how the court will interpret and apply it here remains to be seen. The court’s interpretation of this provision (assuming it is in the policy) could be determinative of the parties’ dispute.

While the outcome of this dispute remains to be seen, the receiver’s position caused me to reflect on an auxiliary D&O insurance policy that many insureds have acquired in recent years, the so-called Excess Side A/DIC policy. The "difference in condition" coverage extension under this type of policy provides that the policy will "drop down" and provide first dollar coverage under certain circumstances.

Although these policies vary significantly, one of the relatively standard features of the DIC coverage is a provision specifying that the policy will "drop down" and provide first dollar coverage if the insured company is in bankruptcy and the proceeds of any traditional underlying insurance cannot be paid because the proceeds are subject to the automatic stay.

The circumstances of the dispute involving the Stanford D&O insurance policy present a situation where the individual insureds might well find themselves unable to access the protection of a traditional D&O insurance policy, at least if the receiver’s current efforts are successful. However, even if Stanford Financial D&O insurance program included a Side A/DIC policy, the typical Side A/DIC policy would not appear to provide drop down protection to the individual insureds in this circumstance, because their inability to access the policy proceeds is not as the result of the initiation of an action under the U.S Bankruptcy Code and not as a result of the automatic stay in bankruptcy.

The apparent nonapplicability of the drop down coverage to these circumstances under the typical Excess Side A/DIC policy made me reflect that there could be a need for an extension of the DIC coverage’s drop down protection to circumstances like this one where the proceeds of the traditional D&O insurance policy may be unavailable for the individual insureds’ protection for reasons other than the operation of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. There may well be some DIC policies out there that might respond in this situation, but the typical Excess Side A/DIC policy likely would not.

The Stanford Financial insurance dispute will be interesting to watch, although it is an extremely unwelcome situation from the perspective of the individuals involved. In any event, the specifics of the situation suggest a possible (and arguably necessary) extension of the DIC coverage in the typical Excess Side A/DIC policy.

I know that many readers may have much more experience with the coverage issues involved in the receiver’s actions in the Stanford Financial case, and many readers may also have views about the extent and limitations of the typical Excess Side A/DIC policy. I encourage readers to share their views with others using the blog’s "Comment" feature.

Quelle Surprise: The Lawyers Want to Be Sure They Will Be Paid: Among other things, the receiver’s asset freeze together with the dispute of over the D&O policy proceeds may have left the various individuals’ lawyers wondering when and how they will be paid. R. Allen Stanford’s new criminal defense lawyers want assurance they will be paid before they will take any actions.

As reflected in an August 10, 2009 Texas Lawyer article entitled "Stanford’s Lawyers Want Assurance on Pay" (here), Stanford’s erstwhile new legal defense team has entered an appearance in the criminal proceeding against Stanford – solely for the limited purpose of determining "whether Mr. Stanford will be granted access to monies to pay for his legal fees and expenses."

"Private Companies Need D&O Insurance, Too": The Stanford Group case may represent an extreme example, but it does illustrate that private companies can become involved in serious claims for which D&O insurance is required. But many private company officials remain unconvinced of the need for D&O insurance, particularly when it comes to closely held companies.

A recent memo by Shannon Graving and Thomas H. Bentz, Jr. of the Holland & Knight law firm entitled "Private Companies Need D&O Insurance, Too" (here) takes a look at this recurring question about private companies and D&O insurance. As the article shows, private companies and their directors and officers may be susceptible to a wide variety of claims, as a result of which, the companies – even family owned businesses – would be well advised to secure D&O insurance protection.

More Madoff-Related Coverage Litigation: As I noted in a prior post (here), Madoff-related coverage litigation has started to arrive, and there undoubtedly will be more to come. Along those lines, Bloomberg reported today (here) that Madoff feeder fund Tremont Group Holdings and its related organizations have filed an action in Delaware Chancery Court against its insurers for denying coverage for Madoff-related claims.

According to the article, Tremont is owned by OppenheimerFunds, a unit of Mass Mutual Financial Group. The article reports that the complaint alleges that Mass Mutual’s D&O insurers and its bond insurers "have ignored repeated requests to pay defense costs." The complaint apparently contends that MassMutual’s D&O insurer has taken the position that the company’s bond insurer should pay a portion of the defense expense, but that "the primary bond underwriters have refused to pay any portion of the joint defense expense." The complaint seeks a judicial declaration of coverage under the applicable policies.

I don’t yet have a copy of this complaint, but I will post a link as soon as I get a copy. I would be grateful if any reader that has a copy of the complaint would forward a copy to me (anonymously, of course, if necessary), so that I can post the link. UPDATE: A copy of the complaint can be found here. Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of this complaint.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for sending me a copy of the Bloomberg article.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Even though I was not even away a full week for the recent PLUS D&O Symposium, there was a flood of noteworthy developments while I was gone. Here is a roundup of last week’s news and notes.

Subprime-Related Derivative Lawsuit Largely Dismissed: In a detailed and painstaking February 24, 2009 opinion (here), Chancellor William Chandler dismissed the bulk of the consolidated subprime-related derivative suit pending against Citigroup, as nominal defendant, and certain of the company’s directors and officers, in Delaware Chancery Court. A very thorough review of the opinion can be found on the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog, here.

Chancellor Chandler dismissed all but one of plaintiffs’ claims for failure to adequately plead demand futility. He did, however, allow plaintiffs’ claims of waste concerning the compensation and benefits package for Citigroup’s CEO to continue.

The most interesting part of Chancellor Chandler’s opinion relates to the plaintiffs’ allegations that the defendants failed to monitor the company’s business risk with respect to Citigroup’s exposure to the subprime mortgage market. Chandler characterized this claim as an assertion that "the director defendants should be personally liable to the Company because they failed to fully recognize the risk posed by subprime securities."

Chandler noted that Delaware case and statutory law places "an extremely high burden on a plaintiff to state a claim for personal director liability for failure to see the extent of a company’s business risk." Chandler concluded that in light of this burden, plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations (and thus their failure to plead particularized facts) were insufficient to excuse demand.

Among other things, Chandler noted that the "oversight duties under Delaware law are not designed to subject directors, even expert directors, to personal liability for failure to predict the future and to properly evaluate business risk."

Chandler did take pains to distinguish the recent Chancery Court decision in which the "failure to monitor" claim against the directors and officers of AIG survived a motion to dismiss. (The February 10, 2009 opinion in the AIG case can be found here.) In that case, unlike the Citigroup action, the defendants "allegedly failed to exercise reasonable oversight over pervasive fraudulent and criminal conduct." The Citigroup case, by contrast, involved only alleged failure to recognize the extent of the company’s business risk.

Both because of the high-profile nature of the Citigroup case as well as Chancellor Chandler’s detailed review of the applicable provisions of Delaware law, his opinion could prove to be particularly influential in other pending subprime and credit crisis-related derivative suits. The basis on which he distinguished the AIG case could also prove to be an important distinguishing characteristic in the determination of which derivative suits will survive and which may be dismissed.

I have in any event added the Citigroup opinion to my table of subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuit settlements, dismissal and dismissal denials. The table can be accessed here. A list of the subprime and credit crisis-related derivative suits themselves can be found here.

One final observation about the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog, which I referenced above. If you have any inclination or desire to follow the important legal trends affecting the potential legal liabilities and responsibilities of corporate directors and officers, you will find the Delaware litigation blog absolutely indispensible. I would rank the blog among the few truly must-read resources in this area on the Internet. The blog’s post on the Citigroup case is just one example why.

More Stanford Financial Developments and Litigation: In addition to the initiation of criminal charges against former Stanford Financial Group investment officer Laura Pendergast-Holt for obstructing the SEC’s investigation (about which refer here), last week’s developments regarding the Stanford scandal included the SEC’s filing late Friday night of an amended enforcement complaint in the matter.

According to the SEC’s amended complaint (which can be found here), R. Allen Stanford and his firm’s CFO, James M. Davis, operated a massive Ponzi scheme and misappropriated at least $1.6 billion of investor money in bogus personal loans to Stanford. An unspecified additional amount was also put into speculative investments, which by the end of 2008 made up the bulk of the Stanford Financial Group’s investments, though the company marketed its portfolio as a "well-diversified portfolio of highly marketable securities."

The amended complaint also alleged that Stanford and Davis fabricated portfolio’s investment performance, deciding each month on the return to be reported and "reverse engineering" the financial statements to reflect investment income that was never earned.

A February 28, 2009 New York Times article describing the criminal charges and the amended SEC complaint can be found here.

In addition to these criminal and regulatory developments, the Stanford Group was also hit with an additional civil lawsuit, this time involving a case filed in a Canadian Court. According to a February 27, 2009 article in the Financial Post (here), on February 25, 2009, Calgary-based furniture manufacturer has initiated a class action lawsuit in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench against Allen Stanford, Stanford International Bank, Stanford Group Company, Stanford Capital Management LLC, James M. Davis and Laura Pendergast-Holt.

The company alleges that it invested $1 million in certificates of deposit issued by the bank. The complaint, which seeks class action status, seeks damages for misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, conversion, fraudulent conveyance and breach of trust. The complaint also asserts fraud in connection with other Stanford investments.

I have added the new Canadian lawsuit to my running tally of the Stanford related litigation, which can be accessed here.

More Madoff Litigation, Too: During the past week, additional litigation related to the Madoff scandal also continued to flow in. I have added multiple new cases to my running tally of the Madoff-related litigation, which can be accessed here. Special thanks to the several readers who have alerted me to new Madoff cases, particularly to loyal reader Jon Jacobson.

One of the more interesting new cases is the one filed on February 24, 2009 in the District of New Jersey. Though this case raises allegations similar to those asserted in prior cases, the complaint asserts claims neither against Madoff and firm nor against the Madoff feeder funds. Rather, the sole defendant in the case is Peter Madoff, Bernard Madoff’s brother.

According to the complaint in the case (which can be found here), Peter Madoff and his brother "have worked side by side" for "nearly 40 years," and their offices "were only a few feet from each other." The complaint alleges, among other things, that Peter Madoff was responsible for "regularly verifying and accurately reporting the financial condition" of the Madoff firm, as well as establishing and monitoring internal controls and detecting and reporting any legal violations. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the ’34 Act, for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.

Hat tip to the Courthouse News Service for the Peter Madoff complaint.

Auction Rate Securities Litigation Continues to Amass: As I have previously noted (here), the various massive auction rate securities settlements do not seem to have stemmed the tide of auction rate securities litigation, and cases involving institutional and entity investors, who are not part of the regulatory settlements, continue to file new lawsuits.

The latest example of this phenomenon is the complaint filed on February 25, 2009 in the Eastern District of Missouri by KV Pharmaceutical Company against Citigroup Global Markets. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

The complaint alleges that between May 2005 and February 2008, Citigroup counseled KV into investing $72 million in auction rate securities that are now illiquid. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the securities can now be sold, if at all, at substantial discounts to par value. The complaint alleges that "holding $72 million of illiquid ARS exacerbates KV’s current cash crisis, which is requiring KV to seek borrowed capital and engage in overall cost-cutting by, among other things, eliminating approximately 700 jobs."

Clearly the auction rate securities market’s continued failure to function is causing enormous stress for the persons and entities unfortunate enough to have been stuck holding these instruments when the music stopped last February.

Hat tip to the Courthouse News Service for the KV Pharmaceutical complaint.

More Failed Banks: Add two more banks to the growing list of 2009 bank failures. On Friday, February 27, 2009, the FDIC took control of the Heritage Community, Glenwood, Illinois (about which refer here), and of the Security Savings Bank of Henderson, Nevada (refer here). Prior to its closure, the Heritage Community Bank had assets of $232.9 million, and Security Savings Bank had assets of $238.3 million.

The closure of these two banks brings the total number of  banks closed during February 2009 to ten, and the 2009 year to date total to 16 (compared to 25 during all of 2008). The FDIC's complete list of failed banks can be found here.

As I recently noted (here), a significant number of the 2009 bank failures, including the two most recent examples, involve smaller community banks. These troubling developments raise serious concerns both for the banking community and for the larger economy. The rash of bank closures also raises the likelihood that there will be increased litigation involving the failed banks and their former directors and officers.

Did the Milberg Kickback Scheme Hurt Class Members?: Those readers who were fortunate enough to have attended the PLUS D&O Symposium among other things heard interesting comments from St. John’s University law professor Michael Perino about the fascinating video, "The Rise and Fall of Bill Lerach" (to see the video trailer for which, refer here). Perino mentioned in his discussion the research he had completed about the impact on shareholder class members from the kickback payments the Milberg firm made to the paid plaintiffs.

In light of Professor Perino’s remarks, I thought readers might appreciate having a link to the Professor’s research paper, which can be found here. As reflected in the paper’s abstract, Perino concluded that not only were the firm’s fee requests and awards overall higher in the cases identified in the indictment, but that these findings are consistent with the hypothesis that class members were harmed.

An interesting commentary on the paper can be found on Professor Ribstein’s Ideoblog, here.

Insurance Persons of the Year: The LexisNexis Insurance Law Center is receiving nominations for the "Insurance Law Persons of the Year." The Center will be making four awards: the Policyholder Attorney of the Year; the Insurer Attorney of the Year; the Insurance Regulator of the Year; and the Insurance Jurist of the Year. In each case, the award will go to the person in each area that had the most impact in insurance law during 2008.

The deadline for nominations is March 6, 2009. Nominations can be sent to Karen Yotis the following address: karen.yotis@lexisnexis.com.

My New All-Time Favorite Headline: The table I have assembled regarding the Stanford Financial Group litigation, which I mentioned above, has proven to be a popular addition to this blog. I am grateful that a number of other blogs and sites have linked to the post in which the table can be accessed.

But as nice as it is for other blogs to recognize my post, nothing can top the article posted on February 24, 2009 on the American Lawyer website (here), entitled "D&O Diary Launches Stanford Financial Litigation Tally; Kevin LaCroix is Our Hero." That one even impressed my wife (I think), which is really saying something.

My thanks to AmLaw reporter Alison Frankel for this nice but undeserved accolade.

And Finally: Just a reminder to all my readers that I continue to report additional items between blog posts on Twitter. Among other things, I am increasingly active in retweeting interesting items from other Twitterers. Readers interested in monitoring my "tweets" are encouraged to click on the Twitter button in the right-hand column above to follow my Twitter posts.

In addition, I remain interested in connecting with readers on LinkedIn. I have recently become much more active in various LinkedIn groups and I would like to draw other readers into the dialog. I encourage readers interested in connecting with me on LinkedIn to click on the button in the right hand column above and join my network.

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

LAST UPDATED ON February 24, 2010. With the arrival today of two more lawsuits against R. Allen Stanford and the Stanford Financial Group of companies, it may now be time to start keeping a table of the Stanford Group-related litigation. Given the magnitude of the losses and the publicity surrounding the Stanford scheme, there could well be a great deal more of litigation ahead.

My running tally of Stanford Group lawsuits can be found here. The document categorizes the suits into several tables, including a final table in which I have listed related proceedings. I will update the table as new cases arrive, and I will indicate the date of the most recent update at the top of this post.

The first of the two lawsuits to be added (that is, latest as of the time this post was originally created) today is the securities class action lawsuit filed on February 20, 2009 in the Middle District of Louisiana, in Baton Rouge. A copy of the complaint can be found here. This latest securities lawsuit joins two separate securities class action complaints previously filed in the Southern District of Texas, as well as the SEC enforcement proceeding filed in the Northern District of Texas. UPDATE: In addition to these cases, the plaintiffs in the first filed Southern District of Texas case have also filed a substantially identical complaint in the Nothern District of Texas as well, refer here.

The second of the two Stanford-related lawsuits to be added today is a lawsuit filed in Texas (Harris County) District Court by a trustee for the Rocky Mountain Trust. A copy of the trustee’s Original Petition can be found here. According to the Petition, the trust used its income to fund a foundation for "medical, dental and nutritional programs in Mexico and Central America." The Petition states that thousands of poor, including hundreds of Mexican orphans, have received assistance through the foundation. The defendants in the case include Stanford Group Company and related Stanford entities, as well as R. Allen Stanford and other individual Stanford directors and officers.

According to the Petition, the trustee was introduced to the Stanford group by acquaintances in Mexico. The trustee was persuaded to invest all of the trust’s assets in Stanford certificates of deposit. The trust is currently invested in three CDs, two of which total approximately $475,000 in face value and a third of which has a face value of about €202,000. Upon hearing of issues involving the Stanford CDs, the trustee unsuccessfully demanded return of the trust’s investment. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud, violation of the Texas Securities Act, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, and breach of contract. The complaint also seeks a temporary restraining order, and exemplary damages.

One common problem all of these cases will face is trying to get service of process on the elusive Mr. Stanford.

Hat tip to the Courthouse News Service (here) for the Louisiana and Texas state court complaints. Thanks to Adam Savett of the Securities Litigation Watch for the new Northern District of Texas complaint.

Other Stanford-Related Notes: The FCPA Blog has an interesting post today (here) questioning whether Stanford’s interactions with the Antiguan authorities could subject him to enforcement action under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Meanwhile, the February 24, 2009 Wall Street Journal is reporting (here) that a hedge fund run by Vice President Biden’s son and brother was exclusively marketed by companies controlled by R. Allen Stanford.

Finally, if you need a steady stream of news about the Stanford scandal, you will want to check out the Houston Chronicle’s Stanford Watch blog (here). Hat tip to the Daily Caveat for the link to the blog site.

For those readers who may not previously have seen it, I am also separately maintaining a list of litigation related to the Madoff scandal, which can be accessed here.

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

Even after Merrill Lynch’s recent $550 million settlement of the subprime-related securities and ERISA lawsuits pending against the company (about which refer here), the consolidated subprime-related derivative lawsuit against the company’s directors and officers remained pending. By contrast to the massive settlements in those other lawsuits, the derivative litigation was recently dismissed, because of the company’s January 2009 acquisition by Bank of America.

In a February 17, 2009 opinion (here), Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the derivative action. The defendants had argued that as a result of the Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill in a stock-for-stock transaction, the plaintiffs are no longer Merrill shareholders and therefore lack standing to pursue the derivative actions as filed. Judge Rakoff granted the motion in light of the requirement under Delaware law for a derivative plaintiff to show "continuing ownership."

In his opinion, Judge Rakoff expressly noted that the dismissal "is without prejudice to plaintiffs’ filing with this Court, if and when they have standing, a renewed action, recast as a derivative action against Bank of America, or as a so-called ‘double derivative action, or otherwise, but based on the same underlying allegations as the actions here dismissed." (As reflected here, a "double derivative action" is a lawsuit in which a shareholder of a parent corporation brings an action on behalf of a wholly owned subsidiary for alleged wrongs to a subsidiary.)

The subprime-related derivative litigation involving Countrywide was also dismissed, following Bank of America’s acquisition of Countrywide, based on the requirement that derivative plaintiffs must demonstrated continuing ownership in order to have standing to assert the derivative claim, as reflected here and here.

Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill is itself now the subject of extensive securities litigation, as discussed here.

A February 20, 2009 Law.com article discussing the dismissal in the Merrill subprime-related derivative litigation can be found here.

Second Stanford Financial Lawsuit Alleges Madoff Connection: As noted in a prior post (here), the same day as the SEC announced that it had launched a civil enforcement proceeding against R. Allen Stanford, the Stanford Financial Group and related entities and individuals, aggrieved investors also launched a securities lawsuit against many of the same entities and individuals in the Southern District of Texas.

A second lawsuit has now been commenced in the Southern District of Texas against the Stanford International Bank and related Stanford entities. Among other things, the second complaint expressly alleges a connection between the Madoff scandal and the new Stanford Financial scandal.

As reflected in the plaintiff’ lawyers February 19, 2009 press release (here), the action is brought "on behalf of purchasers of Stanford International Bank Ltd. ("SIB") certificates of deposit ("CDs") or shares in SIB’s Stanford Allocation Strategy proprietary mutual fund wrap program ("SAS") between February 19, 2004 and February 17, 2009."

According to the press release, the Complaint (which can be found here), alleges that the defendants

fraudulently peddled CDs that promised rates of return far above those available from other banks. Defendants claimed that these superior returns were possible because SIB invested its deposits rather than loaning them. To ensure that depositors could redeem their CDs, defendants assured them that SIB’s investments were liquid and diversified. In fact, nearly 80% of SIB’s investments were concentrated in just two high-risk, illiquid categories: private equity and real estate. Now that the real estate and private equity markets are in free fall, many of those who purchased SIB’s CDs have recently been informed that they cannot redeem them.

The complaint also alleges with respect to the defendants mislead investors about the SAS program. The complaint alleges that the defendants

picked a handful of mutual funds that had performed extremely well in 1999-2004 and claimed the returns of those high-performing funds as the historical returns of the SAS program. Defendants also inflated the claimed returns of the SAS program in 2006 and 2007. Investors, misled by defendants’ claims of historic returns, have fared very poorly in the SAS program.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants misled investors about SIB’s exposure to the Madoff scandal. The complaint alleges that the bank sent investors a letter

unequivocally stating that "Stanford International Bank did not have any exposure to the Madoff Fund." Just two days before this letter was sent, an SIB analyst informed all three of the individual defendants, including R. Allen Stanford ("Stanford"), that SIB had invested in Meridian, a New York-based hedge fund that used Tremont Partners as its asset manager. Tremont, in turn, had invested a portion of Meridian’s – and SIB’s – money with Madoff.

The two fraud schemes seem to have come together as if they were subatomic particles drawn by some unwritten law of physics.

The Sox First blog has an interesting post here on the parallels between the Madoff and Stanford scandal.

Yet Another Bank Closure: By contrast to the last several Friday nights in a row, the FDIC did not assume control of multiple banks following their closure by regulatory authorities. Rather than multiple banks, this Friday the FDIC announced that it had assumed control of just a single bank.

As reflected in its February 20, 2009 press release (here), the FDIC assumed control of Silver Falls Bank of Silverton, Oregon. Prior to its closure, the bank had assets of approximately $131.4 million.

The closure of the Oregon bank already brings the 2009 year to date total of bank failures to 14 (by contrast to the 25 banks that failed during all of 2008). As I have recently noted (here), the surging bank failure levels has some very troublesome implications, and the now standard Friday bank closure announcement is one more reflection of the current challenging financial circumstances.

Auction Rate Securities: Balance Sheet Valuation Concerns: With all the long-standing publicity surrounding the difficulties in the auction rate securities markets, and the extensive related litigation, you might expect that companies with balance sheet exposure to auction rate securities had long since adjusted the securities’ carrying values to reflect the current market conditions. But according to a recent study, many companies with auction rate securities exposure have yet to make any accounting adjustments.

As reported in a February 20, 2009 CFO.com article (here), a recent study of 625 corporate auction rate securities holders found that 186 of them, or nearly 30 percent, continue to report them at par value. The study’s author is quoted as saying that "there’s still an awful lot of companies out there that are not properly accounting for [the auction rate securities]."

These companies failure to recognize their balance sheet exposure to auction rate securities could represent a significant litigaton risk factor. There have already been at least one securities lawsuits against a nonfinancial company that included allegations based on the company’s alleged failure to disclose its exposure to auction rate securities (refer, for example here). Companies delaying their recognition of this exposure could be exacerbating an already serious concern. The delay potentially could represent a heightened litigation risk.

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

In case you were wondering how long it would take, you should know that investors have already filed the first securities class action lawsuit in connection with the fraud allegations surrounding R. Allen Stanford and his Stanford Financial Group.

On February 17, 2009 -- the same day as the SEC announced its charges that Stanford had engaged in a "multi-billion dollar investment scheme" -- plainiff investors filed a securities class action lawsuit against Stanford and his related entites, as well as several other individual directors and  offficers, in the Southern District of Texas. The complaint, which can be found here, is filed on behalf of all persons who purchased securities and CDs from Stanford and affiliated selling agents from January 1, 2000 through February 17, 2009.

Though many of the Stanford investors reportedly are domiciled abroad (particularly in Latin America), the named plaintiffs in this initial lawsuit are all residents of the Houston area. The defendants include not only Stanford and his Houston-based firm but the affilated bank, based in Antigua.

The complaint describes the allegedly aggressive sales efforts undertaken to sell the affilated bank's CDs. The complaint alleges that the sales efforts misrepresented the safety and security of the CDs. The complaint also alleges that the Stanford affilated entitles misrepresented their performance and investment returns. The returns are alleged to have been "misleading and inflated."

Call it a hunch, but I suspect this complaint is only the first of many that will be filed in the days, weeks and months ahead.

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