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

 As I have previously observed, the current credit crisis is about more than subprime loans. Among the other kinds of credit are so-called Option ARMs, which frequently involve prime borrowers. These loans are adjustable rate mortgages where the borrower has the option of paying less than the full amount of interest due, with the unpaid balance added to the principle (that is, the loan can negatively amortize). My prior post describing and discussing the nature of Option ARM loans can be found here.

This negative amortization payment feature of Option ARMs only makes sense (if at all) at a time of rising home prices. At a time of declining home values, it can quickly put the borrower in a position where they owe more than the value of their home. As unattractive as this position is, it can get worse when the interest rate adjusts upwards, leaving the borrower in a position of paying even more to stay in a home that is worth less than the mortgage debt.

Unsurprisingly, borrowers are having difficulties with Option ARM loans, which in turn is leading to problems for lenders with Option ARM portfolios. These problems in turn are leading to litigation.

The latest company to be sued in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of problems with Option ARM loans is Wachovia Corporation, which was sued, together with certain of its directors and officers, on June 6, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs’ lawyers’ June 9, 2008 press release about the lawsuit can be found here. The complaint can be found here. UPDATE: As correctly noted in the reader comment, this case is actually pending in the Northern District of California, rather than the Central District as original text incorrectly stated.

According to the press release, the complaint alleges that:

Defendants misled investors by falsely representing that Wachovia had strict and selective underwriting and loan origination practices and a conservative lending approach that set it apart from other lenders. Such reassurances were repeated by defendants throughout the Class Period in order to artificially support Wachovia's stock price in the midst of a weakening mortgage market. In response to increased market concern with the mortgage lending industry, and Wachovia's option ARMs in particular, Wachovia falsely represented that its loan underwriting practices were much better than at other banks and that this would allow it to prosper while lenders with less exacting standards and procedures would fare much worse. In reality, Wachovia's actual lending practices differed materially from the description of those practices in statements made to investors. The Company's ability to weather the deterioration in the real estate and credit markets was grossly exaggerated by Defendants, at precisely the worst time, when analysts began to ask tough questions. The Company, moreover, had inadequate loan loss reserves and falsely represented that its capital position was sufficient to fund its dividend.

Shortly after last assuring the market of its liquidity, the strength of its underwriting practices, and the adequacy of its reserves, Wachovia reported a surprise quarterly loss, undertook emergency measures to increase capital, and cut its dividend. On April 14, 2008, before the open of ordinary trading, Wachovia reported a loss of $350 million, or $0.20 per share, for the first quarter of 2008. The Company attributed the results to: (1) a $2.8 billion increase credit loss reserves, including $1.1 billion specifically for ``Pick-A-Pay'' reserve build, the lending program highly touted by the Company during the Class Period. The need to increase Pick-A-Pay reserves was attributed to Wachovia's adoption of a ``refined reserve modeling'' that resulted in ``higher than expected loss factors on Pick-a-Pay''; and (2) $2 billion in mark-to-market losses for mortgage backed securities, including a ``$729 million loss on unfunded leveraged finance commitments.'' In order to shore-up its capital, Wachovia announced the following steps: (1) reduce the dividend 41% to $0.375; and (2) plan to raise capital by $7-8 billion through public offerings.

Wachovia is only the latest company to become embroiled in securities litigation arising out of Option ARM problems. Companies previously sued in securities lawsuits involving Option ARM allegations include Washington Mutual (about which refer here) and Downey Financial (refer here). It seems highly unlikely that these companies will be the only ones to become involved in lawsuits involving these concerns.

Indeed, as bad as the situation involving Options ARMs may now appear, circumstances are likely to deteriorate in the months ahead. As discussed in the June 5, 2008 Business Week article entitled “The Next Real Estate Crisis” (here), foreclosures on Options ARMs have already tripled in the last year, but could further hasten as “monthly options recasts are expected to accelerate starting in April 2009, from $5 billion to a peak of about $10 billion in January 2010.” The Option ARM loan defaults “could accelerate next year even if subprime defaults subside.”

The possibility of further Option ARM related securities litigation seems likely.

In any event, I have added the new Wachovia case to my running tally of subprime and credit-crisis related securities class action lawsuits, which can be accessed here. The current tally now stands at 89, of which 49 have been filed in 2008.

It is probably worth noting that this new case is the third in which Wachovia has become involved as part of the current credit-crisis related litigation wave. In addition to the new lawsuit, Wachovia was previously sued in an auction rate securities lawsuit (refer here), and in a Prospectus Liability case arising out of the company’s offering of certain Trust Preferred Securities (about which refer here).

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

As the subprime crisis has unfolded, one of the recurring themes has been the conflicted role of the rating agencies. Last week’s announcement (here) of a negotiated resolution of the New York State regulatory investigation of the rating agencies reflects one aspect of the recurring questions surrounding the rating agencies’ role in the current crisis. These questions are likely to persist in light of the recent revelation (here) that Moody’s continued to assign mortgage-backed securities investment grade ratings despite a whistleblower’s alarm about potential problems with the ratings.

But while the questions about the rating agencies’ role have persisted, and while the agencies own shareholders have sued the rating agencies over the agencies’ own disclosures (about which refer here and here), to date subprime investors have not targeted the rating agencies for their rating activities, to the best of my knowledge.

As discussed in a prior post (here), case law suggests that the rating agencies enjoy First Amendment protection for their rating opinions and activities. And, as also discussed in my prior post, while thoughtful commentators have suggested bases on which these defenses might be overcome with respect to the rating agencies subprime-related investment rating activity, subprime investors have not targeted the rating agencies. Until now.

In a lawsuit filed on May 15, 2008 in New York Supreme Court (New York County), the New Jersey Carpenters’ Vacation Fund has filed a securities class action lawsuit under the ’33 Act on behalf of investors in the three HarborView Mortgage Loan Trusts. In a petition dated June 3, 2008, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A copy of the notice of removal, to which the original complaint is attached, can be found here.

The defendants in the lawsuit include the three HarborView mortgage pass-through certificate trusts; the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (“RBS Group”) and its subsidiary, Greenwich Capital Holdings and related entities, including Greenwich Capital Acceptance (“GCA”) and five individual directors of GCA; and the three rating agencies, Fitch’s Ratings, Moody’s Investor Services, and McGraw Hill, as corporate parent for Standard & Poor’s Rating Services.

The three trusts were issuers of bonds (the mortgage pass-through certificates) created by RBS Greenwich Capital. The offerings were collateralized with loans originated and underwritten by Countrywide Home Loans. The complain alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the offerings failed to disclose “the true impaired and defective quality of the loans collateralizing the Bonds” and that the “loans were not originated pursuant to the underwriting guidelines stated in the Registration Statement.”

The complaint alleges that the rating agency defendants “failed to conduct due diligence and willingly assigned the highest ratings to such impaired instruments since they received substantial fees from the issuer.” The complaint alleges further that the rating agencies “issued the ratings based on an outdated methodology designed in about 2002.” The ratings were alleged to be misleading because the rating agencies “presumed that the loans were of high credit quality issues in compliance with the stated underwriting guidelines, when, in fact, Countrywide had systematically disregarded its stated Underwriting Guidelines.”

The rating agencies later downgraded the mortgage-backed securities. The complaint alleges that the rating agencies “admission that they had not used an appropriate rating methodology …resulted in a substantial decline in the value of the Bonds.” The plaintiff itself claims that its investment in the instruments has declined by 55 percent.

All of the claims asserted in the Complaint are based on the ’33 Act. In Count I of the Complaint, the plaintiff specifically alleges (in paragraph 98) that the rating agencies “served as appraisers” as defined in Section 11(a)(4) of the ’33 Act. The paragraph further alleges that the rating agencies “purportedly reviewed and analyzed each offering and provided the credit rating for each tranche of the HarborView Bonds.” The paragraph further alleges that the service of providing the ratings “was essential to pricing and marketing the Bonds,” and that the ratings were contained in the Prospectus.

As far as I am aware, the plaintiffs’ complaint in the HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust lawsuit represents the first occasion as part of the current subprime litigation wave where subprime investors have sought to hold the rating agencies liable for their ratings. The plaintiff’s allegations will face a number of hurdles, including the jurisdictional issue discussed below.

In addition, the rating agencies will undoubtedly assert a number of substantive defenses, including the First Amendment defense discussed in my prior blog post (here), as well as whether the rating agencies even owed the plaintiff any duties. The rating agencies will particularly dispute the plaintiffs’ attempt to rely on Section 11(a)(4) of the ’33 Act as a basis for the rating agencies’ liability.

The jurisdictional issue pertains to the plaintiff’s initiation of the lawsuit in state court pursuant to the concurrent state court jurisdiction in Section 22 of the ’33 Act. The HarborView case is just the latest of the state court ’33 Act lawsuits arising as part of the current subprime-related litigation wave, as discussed in my prior post (here). In each case, the defendants have sought to remove these cases to federal court, notwithstanding the express prohibition in Section 22 of removal of state court cases to federal court. In at least one of the prior cases, the federal court has remanded the case back to state court in reliance on Section 22’s express removal prohibition (refer here for a discussion of the prior remand case).

It remains to be seen whether or not these cases will go forward in state or federal court. Although it is not altogether clear why the plaintiffs have sought to pursue these cases in state court, the plaintiffs clearly perceive some advantage in doing so. In any event, the success of the plaintiffs’ attempts to hold the rating agencies liable for their investment in subprime-related securities will be interesting to watch. It will also be interesting to see if other investor plaintiffs similarly seek to hold the credit rating agencies liable.

Special thanks to Adam Savett of the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here) for providing a copy of the HarborView removal petition.

Run the Numbers: I have added the HarborView case to my running tally of subprime-related securities class action lawsuits. (My tally can be accessed here). According to my count, the addition of this case, as well as the case filed late last week against Franklin Bank Corp. (about which refer here), the current tally of subprime and credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuits now stands at 88, of which 48 have been filed in 2008.

Speakers’ Corner: On June 19 and 20, 2008, I will be co-Chairing the Mealey’s Subprime Mortgage & Insurance Coverage Litigation Conference at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Virginia, with my good friend Matt Jacobs of the Jenner & Block law firm.

The agenda (which can be found here), includes many distinguished speakers and panelists, such as Andrew Carron of NERA Economic Consulting, Adel Turki of Cornerstone Research, Samuel Rudman of the Lerach Coughlin firm, Dan Bailey of Bailey & Cavalieri, John McCarrick of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, David Hensler of Hogan & Hartson, and Mitchell Dolin of Covington & Burling.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In arguably the most substantive ruling yet in a subprime-related securities class action lawsuit, Judge Ortrie Smith of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, in a June 4 opinion (here) in the NovaStar Financial subprime-related securities class action lawsuit, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice.

The NovaStar lawsuit, which was first filed on February 23, 2007, was one of the first subprime-related securities class action lawsuits to be filed. Background regarding the lawsuit can be found here. The lawsuit alleges that NovaStar, a real estate investment trust, lacked adequate internal controls, as a result of which the company materially misstated its financial results and condition. The lawsuit followed the company’s February 20, 2007 announcement of disappointing results and deteriorating marketplace conditions.

Judge Smith granted the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint does not adequately plead falsity and does not adequately plead scienter.

In addressing the falsity requirements, Judge Smith noted the PSLRA’s specificity requirements, and observed that the complaint, despite its over 100 pages and over 200 paragraphs “presents a very broad picture, and Plaintiff discusses his claims in generalities – precisely what the PSLRA counsels against.” This, Judge Smith said, allowed the Complaint to “create the illusion of detail and insinuate the existence of fraud, which in turn has made it exceedingly difficult for the Court to conduct the analysis required by law.”

After reviewing the complaint’s specific allegations of falsity and finding them each in turn to be inadequate, Judge Smith concluded that “ultimately, Plaintiff fails to identify a single false entry in the Company’s financial statements, nor does he identify the ‘truth’ that should have been disclosed.” Judge Smith goes on to add that the Complaint “reads more like a cautionary tale from a treatise on business management than a charge of knowing misstatements and concealments.” Companies, the court said, “are not expected to be clairvoyant and bad decisions do not constitute fraud.”

With respect to plaintiff’s scienter allegations, the court concludes that the plaintiff “had not presented facts creating an inference of scienter that is at least as strong as an inference that Defendants lacked fraudulent intent.” The court noted that the allegations are “more consistent with a company and executives confronting a deterioration in the business and finding itself unable to prevent it than they are with a company and executives recklessly deceiving the investing community.”

Judge Smith declined to allow the plaintiffs leave to replead, concluding it “would be futile,” since there is “no suggestion that any material was concealed or that any Defendant acted with fraudulent intent, and there is no reason to think further or different pleading will created the necessary inferences.”

The Court’s opinion is pretty much a clean sweep for the defendants, but it is hard to know what the larger significance of the opinion might be. There are few other subprime cases pending in the Western District of Missouri (for which the plaintiffs’ bar is undoubtedly grateful, given the outcome in the NovaStar case), and courts in other jurisdictions may or may attach weight to Judge Smith’s ruling.

One aspect of the opinion that could be significant if it represents the perspective with which other courts will view these cases, and that is the extent to which Judge Smith viewed this case through the screen of the generally deteriorating financial markets and business conditions. Other judges, like Judge Smith, may be similarly disinclined to find anything nefarious in a company’s failure to anticipate declining business conditions – at least in the absence of insider trading or other more compelling factors.

While there may be cases such as the Countrywide derivative lawsuit which courts may be predisposed to allow (about which refer here), there may be others, like the NovaStar case, where courts prove unwilling to infer wrongdoing from business reverses. At a minimum, the NovaStar opinion is a reminder that merely because a company’s fortunes have declined and the plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit does not necessarily mean that the plaintiffs will prevail or make any recovery. There may be more than a few of the cases filed as part of the subprime litigation wave that also fail to survive the initial pleading hurdles.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Next up as targets in the ever-growing wave of subprime-related class action lawsuits are closed-end funds that issued auction preferred securities. The auction marketplace for these securities, like the market for auction rate municipal bonds, has broken down, and investors who bought the securities are now suing the closed end funds that issued the instruments.

First, some background. According to the Investment Company Institute’s web page describing and explaining closed end funds (here), closed end funds are managed investment companies that issue a fixed number of shares. The shares trade on the open market. In addition to these common shares, many closed end funds also issue preferred shares. The owners of the preferred shares are paid dividends, but they do not participate in the fund’s gains and losses. The sale of preferred shares gives the fund leverage, by permitting the fund to make additional investments, hoping to improve the common shareholders’ returns. For auction rate preferreds, the dividend rate is set through periodic auctions, typically held every seven or 28 days.

According to a March 9, 2008 New York Times article entitled “As Good as Cash, Until It’s Not” (here), the marketplace for municipalities’ auction rate notes is $330 billion, and the market for closed end fund auction rate preferred securities is $65 billion. But more to the point, investors in auction rate preferred securities, like investors in municipalities’ auction rate notes, have discovered that due to the February 2008 breakdown of the auction rate marketplace, investors find they are “stuck” with their investments and unable to sell them through the auction market.

But auction rate preferred investors are, according to the Times article, faring “far worse than investors stuck with municipal issues,” because many municipal note investors are receiving a penalty rate of up to 12 percent or more, a rate that is “much higher than the caps on closed-end notes, which are currently around 3.25 percent.” The closed end issuers “have no incentive to redeem their notes since the interest rate resulting from the failed auction is so low.”

A March 30, 2008 New York Times article entitled “If You Can’t Sell, Good Luck” (here) explains that auction rate preferred investors’ difficulties put the closed-end fund issuers “in something of a conflicted position,” because the common shareholders’ returns are enhanced by the leverage from the preferred securities investment. While the preferred holders would like their shares to be redeemed, the “common shareholders would lose out on extra income generated by the preferred share structure.”

Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the class action securities attorneys have now gotten involved. According to their press release (here), on April 21, 2008, the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ filed a purported securities class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund, on behalf of investors who acquired “Auction Rate Cumulative Preferred Shares” (ARPS) in the fund’s September 17, 2007 offering of $350 million of the securities. The complaint, which can be found here, also names as defendants the two investment banks that led the offering.

According to the press release, the complaint alleges that the offering documents omitted that:

(i) the purported “auctions” used by Calamos Fund to get the dividend rates were not bona fide auctions at all, but rather a mechanism to maintain the illusion of an efficient and liquid market for the ARPS so that the Calamos Fund could continue to earn fees from the so-called auctions and from the ongoing stabilizing of the market because of the lack of buyer demand; (ii) the default interest rate set as a consequence of a failed auction is less than the interest rate paid when auctions of certain competing municipal auction rate securities (“MARS”) offered directly by municipal issuers fail; (iii) the ARPS suffer from an additional disadvantage compared to MARS because the ARPS are securities which exist in perpetuity until such time as the Fund calls them due while MARS have a set due date; and (iv) the default interest rate as set would cause the ARPS to trade at a discount to their par value if, and when, the auctions began to fail.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of the auction rate marketplace failure “auction rate securities that were once offered as ‘cash equivalents’ are now illiquid, resulting in economic losses and severe hardships for investors.”

As I have previously noted (most recently here and here), there already is a growing wave of auction rate securities class action lawsuits. However, this most recent lawsuit differs from the prior actions, and not merely because it involves closed end fund auction rate preferred securities rather auction rate notes issued by municipalities. The new lawsuit is also different because it targets the issuer; in the prior auction rate lawsuits, the plaintiffs targeted the broker dealers that sold the securities, not the municipalities that issued the securities.

One thought I had while reviewing the Calamos complaint is that many of these auction rate lawsuits may present some interesting issues related to damages. In most instances, the instruments are continuing to pay interest according to their terms. With respect to the closed end fund notes, the securities are backed by real assets held in the funds, which would seem to suggest that the instruments retain substantial economic value. Even if the auction rate market itself proves to be permanently broken, it would seem that there should be strong economic incentives all the way around for a secondary market for these shares to develop. Of course, whether a fully functional secondary market emerges, and whether the marketplace requires a significant discount for these shares to trade, remains to be seen. But right now, calculating the alleged damages does seem to pose some challenging issues, particularly some mechanism to trade the shares develops while these cases are pending.  

Subprime Litigation Wave Hits Credit Suisse: On April 21, 2008, plaintiffs’ counsel also initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Credit Suisse Group and certain of its directors and officers. According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ press release (here), the complaint alleges that the “defendants failed to write down known impaired securities containing mortgage-related debt.” Specifically, the complaint alleges that

(a) that defendants failed to record losses on the deterioration in mortgage assets and collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) on Credit Suisse’s books caused by the high amount of non-collectible mortgages included in the portfolio; (b) that Credit Suisse’s internal controls were inadequate to ensure that losses on residential mortgage-related assets were accounted for properly; and (c) that Credit Suisse’s traders had put incorrect values on CDOs and other debt securities, concealing the exposure the Company had to losses.

The complaint (which can be found here), also alleges that on February 19, 2008, the company announced (here) fair value reductions of $2.25 billion following its repricing of its asset-backed positions, triggering a sharp decline in the company’s share price.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers have engineered the purported class on whose behalf the action is brought, in a clear attempt to avoid jurisdictional challenges and other concerns. The purported class includes all shareholders who purchased Credit Suisse ADRs on the NYSE, and all U.S. residents or citizens who purchased Credit Suisse stock elsewhere. This purported class excludes non-U.S. investors who purchased their securities outside of the United States.

This class composition seems tailored to match the composition of the class recently certified in the Converium securities lawsuit (as discussed in greater detail on the Securities Litigation Watch blog, here). This class composition also avoids many of the so-called “f-cubed” litigant problems (involving foreign domiciled shareholders who bought their shares in a foreign company on a foreign exchange). Avoiding this issue could eliminate friction at the lead plaintiff, motion to dismiss, and class certification stages. It does raise questions about the foreign litigants and their apparent inability to seek class remedies of the type that other securityholders in the same company are able to pursue in the U.S. Whether that triggers these securityholders to file a bunch of individual actions, as happened after the foreign litigants were excluded from the Vivendi lawsuit (as also discussed on the Securities Litigation Watch blog, here), remains to be seen.

For further background about the “f-cubed” issue, refer to my prior posts, here and here.

Run the Numbers: With the addition of these two new lawsuits, the current tally of subprime and other credit crisis related lawsuits, which can be accessed here, now stands at 76, 36 of which have been filed in 2008. Of the 38 so far in 2008, 15 (including the Calamos lawsuit described above) are auction rate securities lawsuits.

Excess D&O Insurance Coverage Issues: In several posts (most recently here), I have examined the increasingly important emergence of coverage disputes involving excess D&O insurance. In the latest issue of InSights, entitled “Excess Liability Insurance: Coverage Disputes and Possible Solutions” (here), I take a more comprehensive look at the coverage issues involving excess D&O insurance.

Speaker’s Corner: On April 22, 2008 at 1:00 P.M. EDT, I will be participating in a one-hour webinar sponsored by Merrill Corporation entitled “The Subprime Ripple Effect: Preparing for the Wave of Litigation.” The other participants include Thomas Reilly, the former Massachusetts Attorney General and a shareholder in the Greenburg Traurig law firm, and Mark Kindy, EVP of Strategy and Operations for Merrill Corp. Registration (which is free) can be accessed here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Add Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley to the growing list of companies that have been sued in securities class action lawsuits by investors for allegedly deceptive representation in connection with the sale of auction rate securities. According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ March 25, 2008 press release (here), the plaintiffs’ have filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Merrill Lynch and its asset management company on behalf of investors who purchased auction rate securities from Merrill Lynch between March 25, 2003 and February 13, 2008.  A copy of the complaint can be found here.

According to the press release, Merrill Lynch “offered and sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds.” The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch failed to disclose that  

(1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives, like money market funds, but were instead, complex, long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity dates, or longer; (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the time of sale because Merrill Lynch and other broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) Merrill Lynch and other broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and (4) Merrill Lynch continued to market auction rate securities as liquid investments after it had determined that it and other broker dealers were likely to withdraw their support for the periodic auctions and that a “freeze” of the market for auction rate securities would result.

According to news reports (here), plaintiffs also filed a separate but substantially similar lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, raising more or less the same allegations on behalf of a class of investors who purchased auction rate securities from Morgan Stanley during the same class period as proposed in the Merrill Lynch lawsuit. I have not located the Morgan Stanley complaint itself, but will add a link when I get a copy.

UPDATE: A copy of the plaintiffs' lawyers' March 25, 2008 press release announcing the Morgan Stanley auction rate securities lawsuit can be found here and a copy of the complaint can be found here.

These two new lawsuits join a group of similar lawsuits, all filed by the same law firm on behalf of auction rate securities investors, against Deutsche Bank, Wachovia, TD Ameritrade and UBS. The law firm’s webpage describing these various lawsuits can be found here.

With the addition of these two new subprime-related securities class action lawsuits, my running tally of subprime related securities lawsuits, which can be accessed here, now stands at 59, of which 21 have been filed in 2008. Two of these 59 represent lawsuits brought on behalf of investors against mortgage-backed asset securitizers, six are class action lawsuits on behalf of auction rate securities investors, two are brought on behalf of mutual fund investors, and the remaining 49 of which are brought on behalf of public company shareholders.

Subprime Litigation Wave Hits Regions: Birmingham, Alabama-based Regions Financial Corporation has been hit with a couple of different subprime-related lawsuits as the subprime wave continues to spread beyond New York, California, and Florida, the states where the subprime litigation originally was concentrated.

First, according to a March 25, 2008 Birmingham News article (here), the Catholic Medical Mission Board, a Regions shareholder, has filed a shareholders’ derivative lawsuit against Regions, as nominal defendant, and certain Regions directors and officers, alleging that the defendants failed to disclose the extent of Regions’ lending exposure to residential homebuilders, which permitted company insiders to sell their shares in company stock at inflated prices. According to the news report, the complaint alleges that "Regions Financial's stock was artificially inflated because the defendants directed the company to hide the true extent of its subprime exposure.’

The derivative complaint (which can be found here) asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and breach of Section 10(b) of the ’34 Act.

Second, Regions has also been hit with a lawsuit filed under ERISA on behalf of its participants in the Regions defined contribution plan. A copy of the complaint can be found here. The complaint alleges that the offered plan participants Regions stock and investment options in Regions Morgan Keegan funds “when it was imprudent to do so.” The complaint also alleges that the investment in Regions stock and the Regions Morgan Keegan funds was maintained “when it was no longer prudent to do so.”  The complaint alleges that the defendants knew or should have known that these investments were imprudent because of Regions and the funds heavy investment in or vulnerability to subprime mortgage investments, loans and securities. The complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to communicate the risks of investing in the plan and also failed to communicate conflicts of interest.

As noted on my running tally of subprime related litigation (which can be accessed here), with the addition of the Regions ERISA litigation, my running tally of subprime-related ERISA lawsuits now stands at 11.

I have not been keeping a running tally of subprime-related derivative litigation (basically because the primarily state court oriented litigation is hard to track), but there has been substantial subprime related derivative litigation, involving, among others, Bear Stearns, American International Group, and Countrywide.

Special thanks to alert reader Rob Lichenstein for the links to the two Regions lawsuits and the Birmingham News article.

About the Bear Stearns Deal: If as I do you find many of the articles discussing the updated Bear Stearns deal confusing, you will want to read a couple of interesting posts on the Conglomerate blog, that provide insight into a couple of points about the revised deal that have received significant press attention.

First, there has been a great deal of discussion in the press about the possibility that the improved buyout offer may have resulted in part from drafting errors in the initial deal documents. BYU law professor Gordon Smith deconstructs this issue in a detailed Conglomerate blog post here (here), with helpful citations and cross-references to other blogs. Smith’s analysis of the differences between the original and the revised deal documents raise some interesting questions about what J.P. Morgan seems to have sought by offering revised terms. Bottom line, in exchange for the improved merger price, J.P. Morgan has eliminated the provisions that would have kept the deal open for a full year, and also obtained a 39.5% ownership interest as a means to try to ensure that the deal is concluded.

Second, and with respect to that 39.5% ownership interest transfer, Smith has a separate post on Conglomerate (here), that explores the Delaware case law behind the 39.5% interest and the limitations on share transfers to lock in shareholder merger approvals. As Professor Smith’s post notes, there is no automatic cutoff under Delaware law whereby a company can sell up to 40% of itself without shareholder approval, and suggestions to that effect in the mainstream media are “what is known in the law biz as ‘wrong.’” Practitioners have evolved the 40% rule of thumb, but “none of this has been tested in court.”

More About the FCPA: Regular readers know that I have frequently commented (most recently here) on the growing importance of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement proceedings and follow on civil litigation. Two recent publications provide significant additional information on this topic.

First, a March 25, 2008 Law.com article entitled “Today, No Bribe is Too Small” (here), takes a look at the expanding reach of enforcement activities. As the title suggests, the article looks at some seemingly small corrupt transactions that have attracted regulatory attention. The article states that “it seems that no bribe is too small to earn the attention of the department.” The article also focuses on regulatory actions that have been taken by middlemen and third party contractors, and how those seemingly remote actors’ actions have come back to haunt the sponsoring company.

Second, in a much more detailed look at recent FCPA enforcement activity, Porter Wright attorney Tom Gorman has recently posted a running series on the issues involved in recent FCPA regulatory actions on his SEC Actions blog. The most recent post can be found here. Taken collectively, these posts present an excellent overview of the current state of FCPA regulatory actions.

Finally, readers who recall my recent post (here) about the civil litigation arising from potentially problematic activities involving Alcoa’s operations in Bahrain will be interested to note that the U.S. Department of Justice has initiated a criminal investigation of the activities, and in that connection has asked for the entry of stay in the civil proceedings,  as discussed in a March 21, 2008 Wall Street Journal article entitled “U.S. Opens Alcoa Bribery Probe” (here).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks