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 long-awaited ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2010 issued an opinion affirming dismissal of the Morrison v. National Australia Bank case. Among other things, the Court’s opinion will limit securities claims by investors who bought their shares on foreign exchanges. This ruling could have a dramatic impact on many pending cases as well as on future filings.

Background

NAB is Australia’s largest bank. Its shares trade on securities exchanges in Australia, London, Tokyo and New Zealand. Its American Depositary Receipts trade on the New York Stock Exchange. NAB has a mortgage servicing subsidiary, HomeSide, based in Florida. In 2001, NAB disclosed that it was taking a significant write-down due to a recalculation of the amortized valuating of HomeSide’s mortgage servicing rights. Following this announcement, the price of NAB’s shares and ADRs declined, and investors filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York.

The claim was initially brought by four plaintiffs. One of the four purported to represent domestic purchasers of NAB’s securities. The three other plaintiffs bought their shares abroad and sought to represent a class of non-U.S. purchasers. Background regarding the case can be found here.　

On October 25, 2006, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the foreign claimants claim. The court dismissed the domestic plaintiff’s action for failure to state a claim because the domestic plaintiff failed to allege that he suffered damages. The three foreign plaintiffs appealed. The domestic plaintiff’s claim was not before the Second Circuit, and so the appellate court was exclusively concerned with the jurisdictional issue.

As discussed at greater length here, on October 23, 2008, the Second Circuit ruled (here) that U.S. courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of foreign claimants in that case who bought their NAB shares on a foreign exchange and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case. The Second Circuit found that the U.S. based conduct was not sufficient to support jurisdiction under the Circuit’s long-standing two-part test measuring whether there were sufficient domestic actions or effect to support jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari.

The Supreme Court’s Opinion

In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s holding, but overturned decades of jurisprudence on the question of the extraterritorial reach of the U.S. securities laws, holding that the U.S. securities laws do not apply extraterritorially.

The opinion opens with a recitation of the "longstanding principle of American law" that "when a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none." The opinion notes that despite this presumption, the Second Circuit over the course of many years developed an extensive body of case law intended to "discern" when Congress would have wanted the statute to apply. The opinion notes that "the Second Circuit never put forward a textual or even extratextual basis for these tests."

The opinion completely rejected this entire body of case law and the two-part test on which the Second Circuit had relied in this case, noting that "the results of this judicial-speculation-made-law – diving what Congress would have wanted if it had thought the situation before the court –demonstrate the wisdom of the presumption against extraterritoriality. Rather than guess anew in each case, we apply the presumption in all cases, preserving a stable background against which Congress can legislate with predictable effects."

The majority opinion rejected the arguments of the claimants and of the Solicitor General (that would be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the current Court nominee) that the securities laws contained statutory support for extraterritorial application, finding that "there is no clear indication in the Exchange Act that Section 10(b) applies extraterritorially, and we therefore conclude that it does not."

The opinion also specifically rejected the argument that the domestic conduct was sufficient to support jurisdiction, observing that "it is a rare case of prohibited extraterritorial application that lacks all contact with the territory of the United States."

What matters is not where alleged deceptive conduct occurred but where the securities were purchased:

The focus of the Exchange Act is not upon the place where the deception originated but upon purchases and sales of securities in the United States. Section 10(b) does not punish deceptive conduct, but only deceptive conduct "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered."

Based on this analysis, the Court concluded that "only transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges, and domestic transactions in other securities, to which Section 10(b) applies."

The Court also noted another reason for rejecting a standard that would allow jurisdiction for securities cases solely on the basis that the deceptive conduct took place in the U.S. That is, "some fear that [the U.S.] has become the Shangri-La of class-action litigation for lawyer representing those allegedly cheated in foreign securities markets."

Because this case "involves no securities listed on a domestic exchange, and all aspects of the purchases complained of by those petitioners who still have live claims occurred outside the United States" the Petitioners have "failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted" and the Court therefore affirmed the dismissal.

Justice Breyer wrote a separate opinion concurring in part in the opinion and concurring in the judgment, saying in effect it was sufficient for him that the securities involved in this case were not purchased in the U.S.

Justice Stevens wrote a separate concurring opinion, joining in the judgment, by rejecting the majority’s "transaction test." He would not have rejected the Second Circuit’s two-prong test, saying that the Second Circuit has "refined its test over several decades and dozens of cases, with the tacit approval of Congress and the Commission and with the general assent of its sister Circuits."

Justice Sotomayor did not take part in the case.

Discussion

The Supreme Court’s opinion in the NAB case seems to put an end to the so-called "f-cubed" cases – that is, claims brought in U.S. courts under U.S. securities laws by foreign domiciled claimants who bought their share in foreign companies on foreign exchanges. Indeed, the opinion seems to sound the death knell for any would-be claimants under the U.S. securities laws who bought their shares on foreign exchanges.

The opinion would seem to have very significant implications for the many pending cases in which the claims of claimants who bought shares on foreign exchanges are involved. Among other very high profile cases, the Vivendi case, which involved primarily foreign domiciled claimants and recently resulted in a plaintiff’s verdict, would seem to be subject to substantial reconsideration in light of this opinion. (UPDATE: At least one reader has raised the question whether the Court's holding will or even can be applied retroactively. to damages suffered before and purchases made before. I am not sure general prohibitions on retroactive application apply here, as this decision is about the basic reach of the securities laws, but I thought it was worth noting this question here.)

The Supreme Court’s transactional test would also seem to suggest that we have seen the end of filings in U.S. court against foreign companies, except those whose shares are traded on U.S. securities exchanges. (UPDATE: One reader has noted that the "except" clause in the prior sentence does raise the question about whether there might still be jurisdiction over "f-squared" cases, that is those that involve either foreign domiciled companies and foreign investors who bought their shares on U.S. exchanges, or foreign domiciled companies and U.S. investors who bought their shares on foreign exchanges. The first of these two categories seems to meet the test of the NAB case, the second category is a more interesting question. In any event these kinds of issues will have to be sorted out in lower courts in the wake of the NAB decision.)

My concern with that possibility is that it could lead foreign companies to decide not to list their shares on U.S. exchanges, or to delist their shares, as a way to avoid the burden and expense of U.S.-based litigation exposure.

It is entirely possible that this entire debate will now shift to Congress. Indeed, during the current Congressional term, there were specific proposals to incorporate a version of the two-prong test directly in the securities laws. While these proposals had been languishing, it is possible that the NAB opinion could give these proposals new life.

While Congress might now reconsider these proposals, one portion of the NAB opinion might weigh against these kinds of statutory revisions. The majority opinion specifically refers to the arguments of many foreign countries in amicus briefs that the extraterritorial application of U.S. securities laws would result in "interference with foreign securities regulation." These concerns and the requirements of comity, which are detailed in the majority opinion, could well weigh against the legislative reform.

But in any event, the Supreme Court’s opinion in the NAB case must now be applied in the lower courts. There are dozens of cases pending in the lower courts involving claimants who purchased their shares on foreign exchanges. These claimants will now be scrambling to try to establish some basis for their cases to be preserved notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s ruling in the NAB case. However, it seems probable that the foreign purchasers’ claims are likely to be dismissed. This will have significant implications for Vivendi and many other pending cases.

Andrew Longstreth's June 24, 2010 Am Law Litigation Daily artice about the decision can be found here.

Many thanks to the several loyal readers who send me copies of the Supreme Court's opinion.

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

Editor's Note: The corrected post is being republished to remedy an error in the prior email notification. The National Australia Bank case now awaiting decision before the United States Supreme Court raises what the Second Circuit in that same case called "the vexing question of the extraterritorial application of the [U.S.] securities laws." But while we all await the outcome of the NAB case, the lower courts are continuing to wrestle with these "vexing" questions. In two recent decisions in separate cases, two federal district court judges found they lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims under the U.S. securities laws against foreign domiciled companies. Each of these decisions involved different aspects of the jurisdictional question and each represents outcomes that are interesting in distinct ways.

These questions of the extraterritorial application of the U.S. securities laws are most apparent in cases involving so-called "f-cubed claimants" – that is, foreign domiciled investors who bought their securities in foreign domiciled companies on foreign exchanges. Many of the most noteworthy recent cases, including the NAB case itself, have arising in the context of f-cubed claimant cases. The Fairfax Financial Holding case discussed below represents another example of an f-cubed claimant case.

But the European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. case discussed below also involved a foreign domiciled company whose shares trade on foreign exchanges, but the plaintiff and the putative class consisted exclusively of U.S.-based investors. Thus, the EADS case represents an example of an "f-squared" case, as described in an April 10, 2010 memo (here) by lawyers from the Wachtell Lipton firm (who represented the EADS defendants in the EADS case) on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Reform. Nevertheless, though the case represented a lower jurisdictional exponent (i.e., squared rather than cubed) the court nonetheless found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as discussed below.

European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.: EADS is a public company organized under Dutch law and headquartered in the Netherlands. Its shares trade on Paris and Frankfurt stock exchanges, as well as on four Spanish exchanges. Its disclosures are governed by the laws of the European Union and its member states.

EADS shares are not traded on any U.S. exchange, although three U.S. banks have unsponsored American Depositary Receipts in EADS shares. EADS does not make filings with the SEC.

Bristol County Retirement System (a Massachusetts-based municipal employee retirement system) filed a securities complaint against EADS and three of its officers in the Southern District of New York on behalf of "all persons and entities residing in the United States" who purchased EADS shares during the class period. The complaint alleges that the defendants misled investors about production delays in the Airbus A380 super jumbo aircraft.

The defendants moved to dismiss alleging that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

In a March 26, 2010 ruling (here), Southern District of New York Judge William H. Pauley III granted defendants’ motion, finding that neither the alleged U.S.-based conduct nor the alleged U.S.-based effects were sufficient to support jurisdiction.

With respect to his finding that the plaintiffs’ allegations failed to meet the conduct test, Judge Pauley said:

This was a European fraud. EADS is headquartered in Europe. Its shares trade only on European exchanges. It is subject to regulation by the European Union and its member states. Its investor disclosures were prepared and disseminated in Europe. The A380 production difficulties transpired in Europe. Bristol County purchased EADS shares on a European exchange. The gravamen of the Complaint is that EADS’s fraudulent disclosures in Europe inflated its share price on European exchanges, causing Bristol County to lose Euros. The only thing American about this case is Bristol County.

Even though Bristol sought to represent a class only of U.S. investors, Judge Pauley concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet the effects test as well, ruling that "none of the putative class members are alleged to have acquired EADS shares on domestic securities markets." Judge Pauley added that "absent allegations linking the effects of the fraud to the United States, the federal securities laws do not reach this predominantly foreign fraud."

Interestingly, Judge Pauley found the plaintiff’s allegations did not meet the effects test despite the plaintiff’s contention that "there are seventy-three U.S. investors who hold 7 percent of EADS’s total outstanding shares," noting that these investors bought their shares overseas, and that even if some class members acquired shares as ADRs, absent a showing of a "substantial" effect on the purchasers, the "Court could not conclude the effects test has been met."

Judge Pauley also indicated that the doctrine of foreign non conveniens also separately supported dismissal, finding, among other things that the plaintiffs had an "adequate alternative forum" in European courts, notwithstanding the absence of class action procedures and the absence of recognition of the fraud on the market theory in those jurisdictions.

Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited: Fairfax is a Canadian financial holding company with a U.S.-based reinsurance operating unit. A Canadian investment fund, which bought its Fairfax shares in Canada, sued Fairfax in the Southern District of New York in a securities class action lawsuit, alleging that Fairfax had manipulated its reported financial results by improperly accounting for certain reinsurance contracts entered by its U.S.-based unit.

Though the named plaintiff bought its shares in Canada, Fairfax’s subordinate voting shares trade on the NYSE, and Fairfax has filed reports with the SEC.

In a March 29, 2010 opinion (here), Southern District of New York Judge George B. Daniels granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Daniels found that "this case involves Canadian plaintiffs who bought shares of a Canadian company on a Canadian exchange" and that "neither the conduct nor the effects test provides a jurisdictional basis."

Judge Daniels found that the "allegations concerning United States based conduct are severely limited, both in number and jurisdictional significance." Though Fairfax’s U.S.-based reinsurance unit entered into the questioned transactions, the allegedly misleading financial statements were prepared in Canada. The U.S. unit’s conduct "may have contributed to the alleged scheme," but it was "Fairfax’s alleged conduct in Canada that defrauded investors and caused an inflated stock price."

Even thought the plaintiffs alleged an impact on U.S. markets and on U.S. investors, Judge Daniels found "the United States interest affected in this action is minimal, at best," particularly given that "this case involves foreign purchasers who acquired securities in a foreign exchange" and the lead plaintiff "fails to allege that any shares were bought or sold by investors on the New York Stock Exchange."

Though there are U.S. investors and though Fairfax has filed reports with the SEC, the lead plaintiff "fails to indicate that any conduct in Canada caused a United States investor to suffer a loss," and "conclusory allegations that Defendants’ fraud had a significant effect on unnamed Fairfax securities holders in the United States are insufficient."

Discussion

At least at the surface level, these cases are about nothing more than what the courts found the plaintiffs failed to allege. The inference is that with different allegations, the cases might have been permitted to proceed.

As a different level, however, these cases may be more about an unstated but evident judicial reluctance to impose U.S. securities laws on foreign companies in connection with securities transactions that took place outside the U.S. Because there is (at least not yet) no definitive legal authority that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over extraterritorial transactions involving non-U.S. companies (whether or not the claimant is based in the U.S.), these courts both described their rulings in terms of the insufficiency of the plaintiffs’ allegations. However, in neither case were plaintiffs allowed to amend in order to attempt to cure the pleading defects.

Where you come out on the question whether or not these cases were correctly decided may well depend on how you feel about allowing U.S. courts to entertain cases under the U.S. securities laws against foreign domiciled companies, particularly with respect to transactions that took place outside the U.S. The plaintiffs in these cases may well feel aggrieved that a case, on the one hand, on behalf of exclusively U.S.-based investors, and, on the other hand, on against a company whose shares trade on U.S. exchanges and which files reports with the SEC, were not permitted to proceed in U.S. courts.

Defense-inclined observers may feel these courts appropriately declined jurisdiction. These observers may well contend that the mere presence of U.S-based investors alone without more arguably should not be enough to support jurisdiction, for the simple reason that there are very few investment vehicles of any kind any where in the world that do not have some U.S. investor involvement. If the mere presence of U.S. investors alone were sufficient to support jurisdiction, there would be few companies or transactions beyond the potential liability reach of the U.S. securities laws.

There is, however, a larger question here, which is whether U.S. securities laws appropriate should ever be applied to impose potential liability on non-U.S. companies and corporate officials in connection with transactions that took place outside the U.S. It might fairly be argued that to apply U.S.-based liability principles in this context might be an inappropriate extraterritorial extension of U.S. law to persons and transactions more appropriately regulated by the laws of other jurisdictions. One might argue that principles of comity and judicial restraint weigh against the U.S. courts’ exercise of jurisdiction.

The NAB base now awaiting decision at the U.S. Supreme Court may well address these larger principles, although the requirements of the specific case before the court may lead the court to rule narrowly, for example, declining jurisdiction without saying more about the circumstances under which jurisdiction is appropriate and how principles of comity might weigh in the analysis. These cases do raise difficult questions of legal authority and reach in a complex global economy.

As the cases above demonstrate, these issues will continue to arise, and absent definitive guidance from the Supreme Court – or Congress – the lower courts will continue to sort their way through these issues.

Andrew Longstreth’s March 31, 2010 AmLaw Litigation Daily article about these two cases can be found here. The 10b-5 Daily’s post about the EADS case can be found here. My initial post about the EADS case at the time the case was first filed can be found here.

Justice Stevens: The papers this weekend are full of articles about the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens and his possible replacement. Perhaps in anticipation of these events, a couple weeks ago the New Yorker ran a March 22, 2010 biographical sketch of Stevens (here) written by the journalist and Court observer, Jeffrey Toobin. The article draws an interesting portrait of Stevens as the last of a dying breed, the moderate Republican. I recommend the article. It conveys a strong sense of the role that Stevens has played on the Court, particularly in recent years, as well as the possible consequences his departure may have going forward.

Advisen Quarterly Securities Litigation Webinar: On Friday April 16, 2010, I will be participating in an Advisen webinar, entitled "First Quarter Securities Litigation Review," to discuss first quarter 2010 securities lawsuit filings as well as other first quarter securities litigation developments. Other participants in the webinar, which will take place at 11:00 am EDT, include Ken Ross from Willis, ACE’s Scott Meyer, Wilkie Farr’s Michael Young, and Advisen’s David Bradford. Advisen’s Jim Blinn will moderate. Registration information for the webinar can be found here.

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

Courts in the financial center of New York and the tech hotspot of California tend to be where much of the headline grabbing securities law action usually takes place. But this week, the most significant action is in  Washington, D.C., as the Supreme Court and Congress are weighing into several of the hottest topic under the U.S. securities laws.

First, on Monday, November 30, 2009, the Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari in the National Australia Bank case. As a result of taking the case, the Supreme Court is likely to confront generally the question of extraterritorial application of the U.S. federal securities law and will address specifically the question of when U.S. court can properly exercise jurisdiction over securities law claims of so-called "f-cubed" claimants (that is, foreign investors who bought their shares in foreign-domiciled companies on foreign exchanges.) Background on the NAB case can be found here.

Second, and also on Monday, November 30, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Merck Vioxx case, in which the Court will address the question of what is required in order to establish "inquiry notice" sufficient to trigger the two-year statute of limitations for private securities lawsuits under the ’34 Act. Background on the Merck case can be found here.

Third, on December 2, 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on Senator Arlen Specter’s proposed legislation entitled "The Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009," which is calculated to set aside the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in the Twobley and Iqbal cases. These cases define standards for threshold pleading issues in all federal civil cases, including securities cases. A discussion on the background on the significance of the Iqbal decision for securities cases can be found here.

A link for the Senate Judiciary Committee session, which is entitled "Has the Supreme Court Limited Americans’ Access to Justice?," can be found here. The Committee hearing will be webcast and a link of the webcast can be found on the Committee’s hearings webpage.

Each of these developments has potential to work sufficient alterations to important aspects of the securities laws or to their application.

The NAB case potentially could represent a very significant milestone on the issue of the overseas reach of domestic securities laws in a global economy. The Merck case, though focused on a technical statute of limitations issues, could have important practical consequences (particularly these days when for whatever reason plaintiffs’ lawyers increasingly seem to be filing cases belatedly). Finally, Senator Specter’s bill could produce significant changes on the threshold pleading standards for all civil cases, including securities cases.

A November 30, 2009 Law.com article (here) suggests that the Supreme Court showed substantial skepticism that there were sufficient "storm warnings" earlier on that would have put plaintiffs on "inquiry notice" sufficient to trigger the running of the statute of limitations. Ashby Jones also has an interesting post on the WSJ.com Law Blog (here) about the oral argument.

Soon Everyone Will Have a Blog: A column in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reports (here) that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad maintains a blog, called "Mahmoud Ahmadinajad’s Personal Memos." (No link supplied here, it just seems ill-advised to visit the site). Not only does Ahmadinajad have a blog, but his blogging experience is one to which many bloggers – including your humble correspondent -- can relate. The column reports that Ahmadinajad "allots himself 15 minutes a week to write his blog, but admits that at times, he exceeds this limit."

Yes, it really is hard finding time when you have important things to blog about, particularly when that pesky day job can interfere with important blogging activities. (For the record, I allot myself more than 15 minutes a week for blogging.)

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

The D&O Diary is pleased to present the following guest blog post, written by Angelo Savino (pictured),  a partner at the Cozen & O’Connor law firm. Angelo is resident in the firm’s New York office. Angelo’s guest blog post follows:

As noted in prior posts (here), the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to grant certiorari in the National Australia Bank ("NAB") case, which involves foreign-cubed or f-cubed litigation. At the Court’s invitation, the Solicitor General and the SEC have now weighed in with the government’s position by submitting a joint brief.

Oddly, as noted by 10b-5 Daily, the government argues that (1) every Circuit Court that has considered the extraterritorial reach of the federal securities laws since Judge Friendly’s 1975 decision in Bersch has focused on the wrong issue and (2) there is currently a conflict among the Circuits regarding the standard to be applied to foreign-cubed cases under the cause test, but that the Court should nevertheless deny certiorari. Ironically, the government’s position may increase the likelihood that the Court will grant cert.

Background

NAB involved claims on behalf of a class of foreign purchasers of stock in NAB, an Australian corporation, on foreign exchanges. The complaint alleged accounting irregularities at NAB’s Florida mortgage servicing subsidiary, Homeside, that were transmitted to NAB headquarters in Australia and incorporated into NAB’s financial statements, which were then disseminated from outside the U.S. The District Court dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the Second Circuit affirmed.

In considering the extraterritorial reach of the U.S. securities laws, the Second Circuit applied the cause test, which the Court articulated as follows: "subject matter jurisdiction exists if activities in this country were more than merely preparatory to a fraud and culpable acts or omissions occurring here directly caused losses to investors abroad." Relying on two 1975 decisions by Judge Henry Friendly – Bersch v. Drexel Firestone Inc. and IIT v. Vencap Ltd., the Court sought to identify which actions constituted the fraud and directly caused harm, or as the Court stated elsewhere in the opinion "what is central or at the heart of a fraudulent scheme."

Applying the above standard, the Court held that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist because NAB, not Homeside, was the publicly traded company and its executives at the Australian headquarters were primarily responsible for the company’s public filings, relations with investors, and public statements. Thus, the conduct that directly caused any loss occurred outside the U.S.

Thereafter, the plaintiff petitioned for cert. and the Supreme Court invited the government to submit its view on the petition. Although the SEC had previously submitted an amicus brief to the Second Circuit siding with the plaintiff and asserting that subject matter jurisdiction existed in the case, its current brief urges the Supreme Court to deny cert. because, although the Second Circuit analyzed the wrong issue, it reached the correct result.

Discussion

The most striking aspect of the government’s analysis is the assertion, contrary to the jurisprudence of the last 34 years, that "the geography of an alleged fraudulent scheme – i.e., whether it was conceived and executed in whole or in part outside the United States – is irrelevant to the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction." Instead, the government would engraft a geographical component onto the 10b-5 cause of action. The government notes that in cases of transnational fraud, a private plaintiff should be required to demonstrate a direct causal link between his injury and the U.S. portion of the alleged scheme. The government concluded that, in this case, the link between Homeside’s accounting numbers and the harm to the plaintiffs was too attenuated because, as the Second Circuit explained, the numbers had to pass through numerous checkpoints manned by NAB’s Australian personnel before reaching investors.

In an action by the SEC, however, the government asserts that the transnational nature of a fraudulent scheme is relevant only insofar as it has a sufficient connection to the United States to bring it within section 10(b)’s substantive prohibition. This begs the question what is a sufficient connection. The government’s answer this time is to characterize Homeside’s conduct as integral to the overall scheme and, therefore, sufficient to support an SEC enforcement action.

So after trashing the analytical method applied by every court to consider the extraterritorial reach of the securities laws over the last 34 years, the government next concludes that the conduct at Homeside is insufficient for foreign private plaintiffs but sufficient for an SEC action. This tends to give the government’s analysis the appearance of intellectual gymnastics designed to preserve or extend its own ability to bring cases. It seems more analytically satisfying to accept the traditional jurisdictional analysis as correct, and require foreign-cubed plaintiffs to satisfy the cause test while requiring the SEC to demonstrate satisfaction of the effects test, which focuses on harm to U.S. investors and U.S. markets. Moreover, to the extent that the SEC seeks, in a given case, to prevent export of fraud from the U.S., it should rightly bear the burden on a motion to dismiss of demonstrating that the resources of U.S. courts are appropriately being used, as it would if the issue is jurisdictional, but not if it is part of the 10b-5 cause of action. The government’s analytical model would shift that burden for private plaintiffs as well, making it more likely that they would bring more actions in U.S. courts.

The government’s brief also recognizes the existence of a split among the Circuits, but characterizes it as "much less pronounced than petitioners contend." Different Circuits have in fact articulated different formulations of the cause test, as noted in the brief. Add to that calculus, the Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in the CP Ships case, affirming a District Court’s finding of subject matter jurisdiction in a case that, like NAB, involved alleged accounting irregularities at the Florida subsidiary of a foreign company whose stock traded predominantly on foreign exchanges. The apparent inconsistencies among the Circuits, of course, may simply be the product of the fact-intensive inquiry inherent in analyzing causation regardless of how courts articulate the cause test. But even then, it would be preferable to have a single nationwide standard. Nevertheless, the government concludes that NAB is not a suitable vehicle for resolving the conflict because the petitioners identify no case indicating that any other Circuit would allow their suit to go forward.

Conclusion

The government’s arguments seem motivated by a concern that analyzing foreign-cubed cases as a jurisdictional issue and using the Second Circuit’s short-hand formulation of the cause test (where did the heart of the fraud occur?) could prevent the SEC from bringing enforcement actions in certain cases. The government’s reasoning, however, seems to miss the mark. The cause test will have an impact primarily, if not solely, in the foreign-cubed context where there is a foreign plaintiff. The SEC will be bringing cases generally when it perceives an effect on U.S. investors or markets and may, therefore, be evaluated under the effects test. Alternatively, it will need to justify invoking the power of the U.S. courts to protect primarily foreign interests by demonstrating domestic conduct that directly caused the losses. In any event, the jurisdictional analysis rightly places the burden of demonstrating that the action should proceed on the party bringing the case, which the government’s suggested analytical model would not, at least at the motion to dismiss stage.

Despite believing that courts have been misanalyzing the issue for over three decades and despite recognizing a split in the Circuits, the government urges the Court to deny cert. By stressing these issues in its brief, however, the government may very well persuade the Court of the need to resolve these questions in an era of increasing globalization of the capital markets and increasing incidence of foreign-cubed litigation.

The D&O Diary is very grateful to Angelo Savino for submitting this article for publication on this site. I welcome draft proposed guest posts from other authors. Anyone interested in submitting a proposed guest post should just drop me a note using this blog’s contact function (see the Contact link in the right hand column, above).

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

One consequence of the current economic crisis that has long seemed inevitable is some form of legislative overhaul of the financial regulatory system. This possibility may have taken one step toward realization with the October 1 release of a package of legislative proposals by Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurnace and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

In his October 1, 2009 press release (here), Kanjorski released "discussion drafts" of three pieces of proposed legislation that, in the words of the press release, are "aimed at tracking key parts of reforming the regulatory structure of the U.S. financial services industry. The three bills include the Investor Protection Act (here), the Private Fund Investment Advisors Registration Act (here), and the Federal Insurance Office Act (here).

Most of the media coverage of these initiatives has focused on the second of these three proposals, the Private Fund Investment Advisors Act, as reflected for example in an October 2, 2009 New York Times article (here) about Kanjorski’s proposals. This proposed Act would for the first time require many financial providers, such as hedge funds and private equity funds, to register with the SEC. The proposed provisions specify recordkeeping and disclosure requirements and provide regulators with the authority to, as the press release states, "examine the records of these previously secretive investment advisors."

The Federal Insurance Office Act, as its name suggests, would create a national office of insurance. It does not appear that the proposed legislation would supplant state regulator of insurance or even provide for the so-called dual option that has been discussed for some time and which would allow insurers to choose whether to be regulated at the state or federal level, as banks do now.

The creation of a Federal Insurance Office would be intended to remedy a perceived "lack of expertise within the federal government" regarding the insurance industry. The new Insurance Office would "provide national policymakers with access to information" in order to allow them to respond to crises and to ensure a "well functioning financial system."

Though it has received less attention, the third piece of proposed legislation, the Investor Protection Act, also contains some potentially significant provisions, including some proposed revisions to the federal securities laws.

The Investor Protection Act contains a number of proposed legislative changed designed to strengthen the SEC and boost investor protection. Among other things, the Act would, according to the press release, double the SEC’s funding over five years and provide "dozens of new enforcement powers and regulatory authorities."

The Investor Protection Act also introduces a number of proposed innovations, including a proposed whistleblower "bounty" that is intended to "create incentives to identify wrongdoing in our securities market." These provisions allow for bounties of up to 30 percent of monetary sanctions imposed on wrongdoers to be paid to whistleblowers, and also provide protection for whistleblowers from retaliation. The proposed Act also includes a number of provisions designed to facilitate collaboration between the SEC and foreign securities regulators. Broc Romanek outlines a number of the other provisions of the proposed Act on his CorporateCounsel.net blog (here).

Among the changes proposed in the Investor Protection Act are the jurisdiction provisions proposed in Section 215 of the Act, relating to "Extraterritorial Jurisdiction."

It has long been noted that federal securities laws are silent about their extraterritorial reach. The courts have long struggled with jurisdictional issues in securities cases involving foreign-domiciled companies – as, for example, was extensively reviewed by the second circuit in its 2008 decision to Morrison v. National Australia Bank (about which refer here) and by the 11^th Circuit in its recent decision in the CP Ships case (refer here).

Section 215 of the proposed Act would in effect legislatively mandate a jurisdictional standard for extraterritoriality. The jurisdictional reach proposed in the statute is very broad. By way of contrast, the defendants and amici in the Morrison case had urged the court to adopt a "bright line" test that would have held that mere conduct in the U.S. alone should not be enough for U.S. courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction when the conduct had no effects in the U.S.

In its opinion in the Morrison case, the Second Circuit had rejected this proposed bright line test, holding that subject matter jurisdiction exists "if activities in this country were more than merely preparatory to a fraud and culpable acts or omissions occurring here directly caused the losses abroad."

Section 215 would amend the ’33 Act, the ’34 Act and the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 to specify that U.S. courts could properly exercise jurisdiction in any action involving "conduct with the United States that constitutes significant steps in furtherance of violation, even if the securities transaction occurs outside the United States and involves only foreign investors," as well "conduct outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect in the United States." Under the first of these two prongs, U.S. based conduct alone would be sufficient jurisdictional basis, even with respect to foreign purchasers of who purchased their shares of foreign-domiciled companies on foreign exchanges (so-called "f-cubed claimants").

This proposal may represent a legislative effort to head off the Supreme Court, which is currently considering whether to grant certiorari in the Morrison case. Of course, it remains to be seen whether or not this jurisdictional provision will survive the legislative process, or even whether regulator reform legislation in any form remotely resembling the proposal Congressman Kanjorski has put forward.

According to the Times, the House Financial Services Committee has scheduled an October 6, 2009 hearing to discuss this issue of hedge fund regulation, among other issues. Though there is a glut of items on the current Congressional agenda, reform of financial regulation in some form seems likely in the current political and economic environment. What will emerge of course will only be revealed in the fullness of time, but Congressman Kanjorski’s opening salvo suggest that the process could be interesting and that the final outcome could included significant innovations and alterations on a wide variety of topics.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for sending along links to Congressman Kanjorski’s press release.

PLUS Chapter Event: On Wednesday, October 7, 2009, I will be moderating a panel at a Professional Liability Underwriting Society Midwest Chapter event at the Hyatt Hotel in Cincinnati, Ohio. The title of the panel is "Bankruptcy and Barriers to Coverage." The panel, which will go from 3 pm to 5 pm, followed by a reception, will include several of the leading D&O coverage experts. Registration information is available here.

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

On October 23, 2008, in a much-anticipated decision addressing what it called "the vexing question of the extraterritorial application of the securities laws," the Second Circuit in the National Australia Bank (NAB) case ruled (here) that U.S. courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of foreign claimants in that case who bought their NAB shares on a foreign exchange. Although the Second Circuit did not, as friends-of-the-court had urged, pronounce a bright line rule against jurisdiction in such "f-cubed" claims, it nevertheless provided guidelines that will be relevant to similar cases going forward.

Background

NAB is Australia’s largest bank. Its shares trade on securities exchanges in Australia, London, Tokyo and New Zealand. Its American Depositary Receipts trade on the New York Stock Exchange. NAB has a mortgage servicing subsidiary, HomeSide, based in Florida. In 2001, NAB disclosed that it was taking a significant write-down due to a recalculation of the amortized valuating of HomeSide’s mortgage servicing rights. Following this announcement, the price of NAB’s shares and ADRs declined, and investors filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York.

The claim was initially brought by four plaintiffs. One of the four purported to represent domestic purchasers of NAB’s securities. The three other plaintiffs bought their shares abroad and sought to represent a class of non-U.S. purchasers. Background regarding the case can be found here.

On October 25, 2006, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the foreign claimants claim. The court dismissed the domestic plaintiff’s action for failure to state a claim because the domestic plaintiff failed to allege that he suffered damages. The three foreign plaintiffs appealed. The domestic plaintiff’s claim was not before the Second Circuit, and so the appellate court was exclusively concerned with the jurisdictional issue.

The Second Circuit’s Opinion

In its October 23 opinion, written by Judge Barrington Parker, the Second Circuit noted that the "difficulty of the case was heightened by its novelty" – that is, the involvement of so-called "foreign-cubed" claimants. The appellees and several amici had urged the Second Circuit to adopt a "bright-line rule" by holding that in "foreign-cubed" securities litigation that mere domestic conduct should not be enough for a U.S. court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction where the conduct had no effect in the U.S. Links to the briefs for the parties and the amici can be found here. My prior post detailing the issues surrounding "f-cubed claims" generally can be found here.

The Second Circuit duly acknowledged what it characterized as the "parade of horribles" the friends-of-the-court invoked in favor of a bright line test, including the possibility that exercising jurisdiction in those cases could bring U.S. securities laws in conflict with those of other jurisdictions.

However, the Second Circuit observed that declining jurisdiction over all "foreign cubed" cases "would conflict with the goal of preventing the export of fraud from America." In particular, the Court was concerned that the U.S. should not be seen as a "safe haven for cheaters." The court said that "we are leery of a rigid bright line rule because we cannot anticipate all the circumstances in which the ingenuity of those inclined to violate the securities laws should result on their being subject to American jurisdiction."

Having rejected the bright line test, the Court went on to observe that "we are an American court, not the world’s court, and we cannot and should not expend our resources resolving cases that do not affect Americans or involve fraud emanating from America." The Second Circuit said that "in our view the ‘conduct text’ balances those competing concerns." Under the conduct test, subject matter jurisdiction exists "if activities in this country were more than merely preparatory to a fraud and culpable acts or omissions occurring here directly caused the losses abroad."

The Court then turned to applying the conduct test to the NAB case. The claimants urged that because miscalculation of HomeSide’s mortgage servicing rights had taken place in this country, U.S. courts could exercise jurisdiction. The Second Circuit nevertheless determined that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction, citing three factors: "the fraudulent statements at issue emanated from NAB’s headquarters in Australia; the complete lack of any effect on America or Americans; and the lengthy chain of causation between HomeSide’s actions and the statements that reached investors."

Discussion

Though the defendants in the NAB case prevailed, the case hardly means the end of f-cubed litigation. Arguably, in light of the Second Circuit’s refusal to adopt a bright line test, the jurisdictional standards remain largely unchanged, and litigants will continue to argue whether there is sufficient U.S. based conduct and U.S based effects to support the U.S. court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

Moreover, the Second Circuit made it clear that there will be circumstances in which it will be entirely appropriate for U.S. courts to exercise jurisdiction over the f-cubed claims. For that reason, and even though the Second Circuit held that the U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction of over the NAB case itself, foreign claimants likely will continue to try to assert claims against foreign-domiciled companies in U.S. courts.

That said, the claimants case against NAB did get tossed. The Second Circuit did caution against U.S. courts presuming to act as "the world’s court" and also cautioned against the exercise of jurisdiction over claims that do not affect Americans or involve fraud emanating from America. In other words, not all foreign claimants’ claims against foreign domiciled companies will go forward in U.S. courts.

Moreover, these issues are relevant not only at the motion to dismiss stage but also at the other procedural stages, including the lead plaintiff stage (refer here). As Adam Savett noted on the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here), courts have been increasingly willing to craft class certification to exclude foreign domiciled claimants at least in certain circumstances.

All of that said, the NAB decision will be grist for the mill in the onslaught of litigation involving foreign domiciled companies sued in connection with the current subprime and credit crisis litigation wave. The NAB decision necessarily implies a case-by-case determination and so litigants will continue to wrestle to determine whether these cases will go forward in U.S. courts. In the meantime, the cases will continue to be filed.

An October 23, 2008 Bloomberg article discussing the case can be found here.

Special thanks to George T. Conway, III of the Wachtell, Lipton law firm, who successfully represented NAB in the Second Circuit, for providing me with a copy of the opinion.

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

When the various broker dealers and investment banks recently announced their agreements with government regulators to buy back auction rate securities, the announcements raised questions about the continuing need for the pending auction rate securities litigation. But, at least based on a recently filed lawsuit, it now appears that the settlements may have opened the door for a whole new round of securities litigation related to the settlements themselves.

On October 3, 2008, plaintiffs’ lawyers initiated a securities class action lawsuit in New York (New York County) Supreme Court on behalf of investors who purchased bonds and preferred securities in various offerings conducted pursuant to Merrill Lynch’s March 31, 2006 shelf registration. A copy of the complaint can be found here. The complaint, which asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the ’33 Act, names as defendants Merrill Lynch and related entities; certain current and former Merrill Lynch directors and officers; the underwriters that conducted the various offerings; and Merrill Lynch’s auditor.

The complaint alleges that the offering documents "misstated Merrill’s financial condition and failed to disclose that the Company bore massive exposure to losses from investments tied to subprime and other mortgages, and was responsible for significant liability arising from its participation in the market for auction rate securities (ARS). Further Merrill improperly valued mortgage-backed assets on its books, and failed to account for its contingent obligations in the ARS market."

The complaint alleges that as a result of later disclosures about the company’s "true financial condition," the value of the securities sold in the referenced offerings declined materially. The complaint specifically refers to, regarding the company’s true financial condition, Merrill Lynch’s August 7, 2008 announcement (here) that "it would repurchase $12 billion in ARS from investors due to the failure of the ARS market."

Merrill Lynch previously was the target of what I will call a "conventional" auction rate securities lawsuit. Background regarding this prior lawsuit can be found here and regarding the prior auction rate securities lawsuits generally can be found here.

This new Merrill Lynch lawsuit complaint differs from the prior conventional auction rate securities lawsuit in a variety of ways. The most important distinction is who is represented in the plaintiff class. The prior auction rate securities lawsuits were brought on behalf of auction rate securities investors – that is, the people who bought the actual auction rate securities. The plaintiffs in the Merrill Lynch lawsuit are not persons who bought auction rate securities, but who bought Merrill Lynch’s own securities in the referenced offerings.

The misrepresentations alleged are different as well. In the conventional auction rate securities lawsuits, the allegation is that the risks of the auction rate securities were insufficiently disclosed. In this new lawsuit, the allegation is not about the risks of auction rate securities themselves, but rather that Merrill Lynch did not disclose its own susceptibility to contingent liability in connection with its issuance or sale of the auction rate securities.

One other peculiarity of the prior auction rate securities lawsuits is that those suits generally did not name any individual defendants. The new Merrill Lynch complaint names a couple of dozen individual defendants, as well as several dozen offering underwriters.

Given the number and identities of the various defendants, this lawsuit will keep a lot of lawyers employed for a long time. Among the preliminary issues on which the lawyers will be engaged is the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs elected to file their lawsuit in state court pursuant to the concurrent jurisdiction provisions in Section 22 of the ’33 Act. The defendants undoubtedly will seek to remove the lawsuit to federal court, and the plaintiffs in turn will seek to have the case remanded to state court.

As I noted in a prior post (here), the Ninth Circuit recently upheld the decision of the district court in the Luther v. Countrywide case to remand a ’33 Act case back to state court, where it originally had been filed before being removed to federal court. However, as the 10b-5 Daily blog recently noted (here), a judge in the Southern District of New York refused to remand New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund v. Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust, which had been removed to federal court. Among other things the court in the Harborview case held that the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act trumped the jurisdictional provisions of the ’33 Act.

In view of the fact that the new Merrill Lynch case likely will be remanded to the Southern District of New York (the same court in which the Harborview case is pending), it will be interesting to see whether the plaintiffs are able to have the case remanded back to the New York state court where they initially filed the new Merrill Lynch complaint.

As I have previously noted, along with the question whether or not a ’33 Act case properly can be removed to federal court is the more practical question of why the plaintiffs want to proceed in state court in the first place. Some day someone will explain to me why the plaintiffs’ bar suddenly has developed this fascination with pursuing ’33 Act claims in state court. Is it, as I have supposed, an effort to circumvent the procedural requirements of the PSLRA?

In any event, I have added the new Merrill Lynch complaint to my running tally of subprime and credit crisis-related securities lawsuits, which can be accessed here. With the addition of the new lawsuit, the current tally now stands at 125, of which 85 have been filed in 2008. Of these, 21, including the new Merrill Lynch lawsuit, are auction rate securities lawsuits.

Motion to Dismiss Granted in Subprime Securities Lawsuit: On September 29, 2008, Judge John Steele of the Middle District of Florida granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in one of the more unusual subprime related securities lawsuits. A copy of the opinion can be found here.

As detailed here, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants (First Home Builders of Florida and two residential real estate brokerage firms, as well as successor entities), in violation of the federal securities laws, had fraudulently induced plaintiffs to purchase real estate investment properties by promising that defendants would procure lease-to-own tenants for the investors’ properties; that the tenants rental payments would cover all of the investors’ out-of-pocket costs; and that investors would receive a guaranteed 14% return on the investment in the first year.

Judge Steele granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that as a result of the plaintiffs’ failure "to allege who made what misrepresentations," the plaintiffs’ fraud allegations failed to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). Judge Steele declined to rule on the plaintiffs’ group pleading theory. He allowed plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.

I have added the First Home Builders of Florida dismissal to my table of subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuit case dispositions, which can be accessed here.

Special thanks to Adam Savett of the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here) both for the Merrill Lynch complaint and for the opinion in the First Home Builders of Florida case.

Note from Ohio: I want to know how the Saturday Night Live scriptwriters managed to get the whole  "Joe the Plumber" schtick inserted into tonight's actual Presidential debate. But the one thing I do know is that after tonight's debate, my fellow Ohioan, Joe the Plumber, is moving to Canada, where he will be left in peace because their national election is already finished.

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

In prior posts (refer here), I have discussed the increasing reluctance of U.S. courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over securities claims against foreign-domiciled companies brought by foreign claimants who bought their shares on foreign exchanges (so-called “f-cubed” claimants).

In the most recent example of this, Judge Thomas Griesa of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in a June 3, 2008 opinion (here), granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of “f-cubed” claimants against AstraZeneca and certain of its directors and offices.

The complaint essentially alleges that Exanta, a pharmaceutical being develop by the AstraZeneca (a U.K.-based company) “was not as safe or effective as defendants’ public statements made it out to be.” The plaintiffs’ claimed that these statements inflated the company’s share price. Refer here for background regarding the lawsuit.

The outcome of the subject matter jurisdiction question was probably tipped in the court’s opening observation that “over 90% of the members of the putative class are foreigners who purchased their shares on foreign exchanges.”

The court reviewed the propriety of its exercise of jurisdiction over claims brought on behalf of these foreign shareholders, by considering whether or not there were sufficient allegations of U.S.-based conduct causing sufficient U.S.-based effects. The court found that while there were sufficient allegations of U.S.-based conduct, plaintiffs “do not allege facts in support of the second prong of the test – that the United States conduct ‘directly caused’ plaintiffs’ losses.”

The court said that in order to establish this requisite causal link, the plaintiffs must have “sufficiently alleged that the foreign purchasers relied on United States based conduct when deciding to acquire the stock”. In order to establish this kind of reliance, the plaintiffs urged the court in effect to adopt a global “fraud-on-the-market” theory, arguing that “it is illogical to suggest that the fraud-on-the-market theory applies within the United States but not outside of it.”

The court noted that other courts had rejected the global fraud-on-the-market theory, out of concerns that it would “extend the jurisdictional reach of the United States securities laws too far.” The court further noted that the Second Circuit had not yet provided guidance on whether the fraud-on-the-market theory should apply to foreign countries, and “in the absence of clear authority in favor of a global fraud-on-the-market theory, the court declines to adopt such a theory.” The court dismissed the claims of the foreign claimants based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The court further concluded that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged that two foreign-domiciled individual defendants had the requisite “minimum contacts” with the U.S. for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them.

Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently pled scienter, and dismissed the remaining claims on that basis. The court held that neither the allegations of insider trading nor the allegations relating to a secondary offering were sufficient to establish scienter.

The court further rejected the plaintiffs allegations that the defendants had consciously disregarded the truth, based on the court’s own review of the various disclosure documents on which the plaintiffs sought to rely. The court concluded that the plaintiffs “have not alleged anything to negate the idea that that defendants were attempting to develop a drug they thought beneficial and were do describing it to the public.” The court found that the plaintiffs had “not alleged an inference of scienter as compelling as the opposing inference.”

The fact that the case will not be going forward even as to the domestic shareholders reduces the impact of the court’s ruling to exclude the f-cubed claimants from the class. The dispersion of the class, with such an overwhelming percentage of f-cubed claimants in the purported class members may well have inclined the outcome on the jurisdictional issue in any event.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the most recently filed cases seem to be anticipating that courts are inclined to exclude these claimants from the putative class and increasingly are taking that into account in their initial pleadings. For example, as discussed here, when plaintiffs’ lawyers recently launched a U.S. securities lawsuit against Société Générale, they included in the purported class only U.S residents and investors who bought ADRs on U.S. exchanges. Their purported class by its own construction excludes foreign residents who bought shares on foreign exchanges.

The increasing exclusion of f-cubed litigants from U.S. securities class actions (whether voluntary or as a result of court action) is one of the reasons that interest in U.S.-style securities relief is increasing in other countries, as I discussed in a recent post (here).

In any event, the court’s dismissal of the AstraZeneca case also continues another trend, which is that while life sciences companies are frequently sued (compared to companies in most other categories), the cases filed against them are often dismissed, as I also discussed in a prior post (here)

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