I hate to sound like a broken record a broken record, but as the third quarter securities lawsuit filings continue to come in, certain definite trends are clearly emerging. As I previously noted (here), the most recent filings are characterized by a high number of new lawsuits against companies outside the financial sector and by proposed class period cutoff dates in the distant past. Last week’s new filings reflect these previously noted trends, which I think both explain the second quarter filing "lull" and suggest what we might expect for the balance of the year.
The following table shows the filing date for four of the new class action securities lawsuits filed last week (each of the company names in the table below is hyperlinked to a web page providing further information about the respective lawsuit):
| Company | Filing Date | Class Period End Date |
| Flotek Industries | 8/10/09 | 1/23/08 |
| Align Technlogy | 8/11/09 | 10/24/07 |
| MIND C.T.I., Ltd. | 8/13/09 | 2/27/08 |
| Sturm, Roger & Company | 8/13/09 | 10/29/07 |
As shown in the table, each of these new lawsuits has been filed against companies outside the financial sector and each of them has a proposed class period cutoff date well over a year and a half ago.
These latest filings, taken together with the filings noted in my prior post on this topic (here), represent growing data supporting my theory that during the run-up in securities lawsuits against financial companies in connection with the subprime and credit crisis litigation wave, the plaintiffs’ lawyer accumulated a backlog of cases against companies outside the financial sector, and they are now starting to work off that backlog.
Indeed, even with respect to recent filings that have a more recent proposed class period cutoff date, the filings are largely with respect to companies outside the financial sector, as reflected in the new lawsuit recently filed, for example, against Huron Consulting (refer here); Repros Technology (here); Textron (here); and Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions (here).
All of which leads me to a number of conclusions: the filing "lull" noted in the second quarter is over; part of the reason for the lull was that plaintiffs’ lawyers hit a logjam because of credit crisis and Madoff-related litigation activity, as a result of which they accumulated a backlog of cases against companies outside the financial sector, that they are now starting to work off; and as a result we are seeing a rush of new lawsuits against companies outside the financial sector.
Furthermore, I strongly suspect that this observed third quarter trend of new lawsuit filings against companies outside the financial sector will continue for the balance of the year, and many of these new lawsuits will be characterized by proposed cut-off dates approaching the two-year period of the statute of limitations. Notwithstanding the second quarter filing lull, by year end the annual rate of new filings for 2009 will be consistent with, if not slightly above historical norms.
In support of this final point about likely year end filing levels, I note not only the conjectured lawsuit backlog discussed above, but also the recent heightened level of SEC enforcement activity and the marketwide run-up in share prices since March, which could position some individual companies for the kind of sudden and conspicuous share price decline that attracts the unwanted attention of the securities class action plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Another Trend Noted: The lawsuit noted above that was filed last week against MIND C.T.I. Ltd. also represents another securities lawsuit filing trend I have described previously (refer for example here) – that is, the investor lawsuit regarding a company’s balance sheet exposure to auction rate securities.
The typical ARS-related lawsuit is brought by an ARS purchaser against the firm that created or sold the security. However, in contrast to this more typical ARS lawsuit, the suit filed against MIND alleges that the company misrepresented or failed to fully disclose the company’s balance sheet exposure to ARS investments. That is, rather than suing the ARS seller, the type of suit filed against MIND is brought against the ARS buyer.
As I noted in my most recent post (here) about auction rate securities litigation, numerous public companies continue to face surprisingly large balance sheet exposures to ARS, and some of them may be potentially vulnerable to this type of investor over the companies’ ARS-related disclosures.
It is interesting to note that MIND’s auction rate securities investments included investments in the infamous Mantoloking CDO, about which I previously wrote here. As I noted in my prior post, this single CDO has spawned an enormous amount of litigation, including even (as I noted in the prior post) a FINRA arbitration initiated by MIND against the creators and sellers of the Mantoloking CDO.
Insolent Sprat: When I told my then 15-year old son that he sounded like a broken record, he said "What does a broken record sound like?"