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 January 18, 2013 order (here), the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to hear the appeals of three separate petitioners in cases arising out of the Ponzi scheme of R. Allen Stanford. The petitioners are two former law firms for the Stanford International Bank and an insurance brokerage that allegedly was involved in the sale of certificates of deposits for the bank. The petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the plaintiffs are precluded under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”) from asserting state-law class action claims against the three firms. By taking up the case, the Supreme Court will decide important issues about SLUSA’s scope that have divided the lower courts.

Congress enacted SLUSA in 1998 in order to prevent erstwhile securities law claimants from circumventing the restrictions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) by filing their claims in state court under state law. As the Supreme Court said in 2006 in the Dabit case, “To stem the shift from Federal to State courts and to prevent certain State private securities class action lawsuits alleging fraud from being used to frustrate the objectives of the [PSLRA], Congress enacted SLUSA.”

SLUSA precludes most state-law class actions involving a “misrepresentation” made “in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security.” The lower courts have wrestled with the question of what it required in order to satisfy the “in connection with” requirement and trigger SLUSA preclusion.

In these cases, the investor plaintiffs contend they were misled to believe that the CDs in which they invested were backed by quality securities traded on major exchanges (though it later appeared that the CDs in fact had little or nothing behind them). The defendants moved to dismiss the state law class actions that had been filed against them, arguing that, though CDs themselves were not “covered securities” within the meaning of SLUSA, the state court class action claims were nevertheless precluded under SLUSA because the plaintiffs claimed they were induced to purchase the securities by misrepresentation that the CDs were backed by SLUSA-covered securities.

The district court before which the cases were consolidated granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and the plaintiffs appealed. In a March 19, 2012 opinion (here), a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court, specifically holding that the alleged purchases of covered securities that back the CDs were “only tangentially related to the fraudulent scheme” and therefore that SLUSA does not preclude the plaintiffs from using state class actions to pursue their claims.

In reaching its decision, the Fifth Circuit panel exhaustively reviewed the prior case law in which other Circuit courts had considered the question of what connection between an alleged fraud involving uncovered and a downstream transaction in covered securities is required for SLUSA preclusion to apply. The Fifth Circuit’s review of the case law shows that there are divergent and potentially inconsistent views among the various Circuit courts on this question.

The two defendant law firms and the defendant insurance brokerage firm filed petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The cert petitions of the Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne & Parke law firms can be found here and here, respectively. The cert petition of the insurance brokerage, Willis of Colorado, Inc., and its related entities and firms, can be found here. (Hat tip to the SCOTUS Blog for the links to the cert petitions.)

In its petition, the Chadbourn & Parke law firm argued that split in authority among the various circuit courts has resulted in inconsistent interpretations and applications of SLUSA preclusion. The firm argued that the Fifth Circuit had adopted an interpretation of the “in connection with” standard that resulted in a determination that SLUSA preclusion did not apply, allowing the case against the firm to go forward, while at the same time rejected a conflicting standard prevailing in the Second, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits that would have resulted in the application of SLUSA preclusion here. The petitioners argued that the Circuit split not only threatened inconsistent outcomes among the Circuits, but it frustrated the very purposes for which Congress enacted SLUSA – that is to establish “national standards” for class actions “involving nationally traded securities.”

The Supreme Court’s consideration of these three consolidated cases promises to be interesting and potentially significant. If nothing else, the consolidated cases involve a high-stakes dispute relating to a high-profile fraud. This consideration alone ensures that the Supreme Court’s consideration of these three consolidated cases will receive significant attention.

On a more basic level, the Supreme Court’s consideration of these issues should resolve the split among the Circuits in their interpretation of the “in connection with” requirement in the SLUSA preclusion provision. Resolving this split should reduce the possibility of different outcomes in different cases based on nothing more than the judicial Circuit in which the different cases were filed.

More importantly, the Supreme Court’s consideration of these issues will help define the scope of SLUSA preclusion in more complex cases where the alleged fraudulent scheme involves a multi-layered transaction. These kinds of questions have been unfortunately common in recent times: for example, the same kinds of questions arose in connection with the Madoff feeder fund suits. (The Courts in the Madoff feeder fund cases concluded that SLUSA preclusion applied.)

In a very important sense, the Supreme Court is just the latest battle in the continuing struggle that first emerged after the enactment of the PSLRA. The struggle involves the efforts of the plaintiffs’ securities bar to try to find ways to circumvent the strict standards that Congress imposed in the PSLRA. The plaintiffs’ lawyers first tried to avoid the PSLRA by pursuing their claims in state law suits to which the PSLRA. To avoid that, Congress enacted SLUSA. In these consolidated cases, the Supreme Court will determine the extent to which plaintiffs pursuing claims against remote actors are or are not subject to the constraints of the PSLRA as well as the subsequent Supreme Court case law interpreting the PSLRA

In their cert petition, Chadbourne Park argues that the plaintiffs’ filed their claims as state law class action precisely for the reason of circumventing Supreme Court case decisions that restricted federal securities law claims against third party advisors, which is precisely the outcome SLUSA was intended to prevent. In making these arguments, the law firm emphasizes that the aiding and abetting claims the plaintiffs are attempting to assert under state law are not allowed under federal law. The Supreme Court’s determination of these consolidated cases will significantly determine the extent to which plaintiffs can pursue state law securities-related claims against third party advisors. The determination matters because of the possibility it presents that the plaintiffs could pursue these state law claims in circumstances in which federal statutory and case law would not permit such claims.

The Supreme Court’s cert grant in these three consolidated cases is just the latest in a series of securities-related disputes that the Court has been willing to take up. The Court already has the Amgen case on its docket this term; the Amgen case has already been argued and the Court’s decision in expected before the end of the current term in June.

It used to be that years would pass between Supreme Court cases considering securities law issues. In the past five or six years, though, the Court has seemed to want to take up several securities cases each term. While the Court’s willingness to take up more securities cases certainly provides great blog fodder, it has made the securities litigation environment more volatile and it has occasionally introduced significant and unanticipated changes (as happened for example with the Supreme Court’s paradigm-shifting opinion in Morrison v. National Australia Bank). In final analysis, that is the real reason it is interesting when the Supreme Court agrees to take up a securities case – you never know for sure what might happen when the Supreme Court makes its determination.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Years from now, when the history of the Roberts Court is finally written, I hope that the historians will be able to explain why during the first dozen years of the 21^st century, the U.S. Supreme Court seemed so eager to take up securities cases. But whatever the reason, on June 27, 2011, on the final day of a term in which the Court heard three different securities cases, the Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to hear yet another securities case next term.

The case is styled as Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds and the question that the Supreme Court will address has to do with the interpretation and application of the statute of limitations in Section 16(b) of the ’34 Act, relating to so-called “short swing profits.” Here is the Question Presented in the case:

Whether the two-year time limit for bringing an action under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b), is subject to tolling, and, if so, whether tolling continues even after the receipt of actual notice of the facts giving rise to the claim.

The litigation arises out of the IPO laddering scandal from the dot com era. The plaintiff filed fifty-four related derivative complaints under Section 16(b) in connection with 54 IPOs in 1999 and 2000. The gist of the plaintiff’s allegation is that the supposed arrangement whereby the underwriters had arranged for post-IPO stock purchases of the issuers’ securities at progressively higher prices (“laddering”) constituted prohibited short-swing profits. The plaintiff seeks to compel the underwriter defendants to disgorge their profits.

The District Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. As to thirty of the cases, the district court granted the dismissal motion as to thirty of the companies based upon the inadequacy of the derivative demand letters the plaintiff had sent to the issuer companies. The District Court dismissed the remaining twenty-four cases on the basis of Section 16(b)’s two year statute of limitations. The plaintiff appealed.

In a December 2, 2010 opinion (as amended on January 18, 2011) written  by Judge Milan Smith a three-judge panel the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling as to the demand letters, but reversed the district court as to the statute of limitations issue. The specific issue the Ninth Circuit addressed was whether the two-year statute of limitations is a strict statute of repose, or whether it is a “notice” or “discovery” statute that is tolled until the claimant has sufficient information to be put on notice.

The Ninth Circuit, following its own prior precedent, held that the two-year statute operates as a “notice” statute, and the running of the statute is tolled until there has been adequate disclosure of the trade. Because the statute begins to run only when the defendant files a Section 16(a) disclosure statement, and because the defendants did not file a Section 16(a) statement, the Ninth Circuit held that the claims are not time-barred.

In an unusual twist, Judge Smith, the author of the opinion for the three judge panel, added an additional opinion “specially concurring” in the result and expressing his view that the two-year statute of limitations is a statute of repose, and that were it not for the prior Ninth Circuit precedent on which the court relied in deciding this case, he would have voted that the Section 16(b) cases could not be brought more than two years after the short-swing trades took place.

The defendants affected by the Court’s ruling on the statute of limitation filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court and on June 27, 2011, the Court granted the petition.

Discussion

There was a time when the Supreme Court rarely took up securities cases. That time is long passed. The Court is not only routinely taking up securities cases, but it is even taking up routine matters – this is the second securities-related statute of limitations case the Court has taken up recently. Just last year the Court dealt with statute of limitations issues in the Merck case.

The Court has only just accepted this case and it has not yet been briefed, much less argued. The Supreme Court does not explain why it takes up the cases it takes up. But I have to say that it doesn’t seem very likely that the Supreme Court took up this case to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s holding. I have no idea how five or more votes on this case will line up, but if I had to predict I would guess that the Court will say that two –year statute of limitations in Section 16(b) operates as a statute of repose.

It seems that Judge Smith’s unusual appended opinion specially concurring in the holding but in effect dissenting from the Ninth Circuit’s precedent operated like an entreaty to the Supreme Court to clean up the situation.

The one wild card is that Chief Justice Roberts may not participate in this case. The Court’s June 27 order specifies that Roberts did not participate in consideration of the cert petition. He may be conflicted out, perhaps as a result of his prior activities while in private practice. If Roberts does not participate, the conservative majority that lined up together this past term on the Janus Capital (refer here) and Wal-Mart Stores case (here) may not be able to put together the five votes to control the outcome. In which case, the outcome of the Supreme Court review may be too close to call.

But in any event, next October we will enter yet another Supreme Court term with at least one securities case on the Court’s docket. I know for sure at least one blog post I will be writing somewhere between next October and next June.

Special thanks to a loyal reader for alerting me to the cert petition grant.  

A Year After Morrison: Speaking of the Supreme Court and securities cases, the first anniversary of the Morrison v. National Australia Bank case has just passed, and in recognition of the event, Luke Green had an interesting retrospective post on his ISS Securities Litigation InSights blog (here). I have long thought that the Morrison case was one of the most interesting developments in this area, and as Green’s post makes clear, the case has had a multitude of interesting implications.

Summertime: “Love to me is like a summer day/silent because there’s just too much to say./Still and warm and peaceful,/even clouds that may drift by can’t disturb our summer sky.”

Pentwater, Michigan  June 26, 2011

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link