In their paper “A Great Game: The Dynamics of State Competition and Litigation” (here), Ohio State Law Professor Steven Davidoff and Notre Dame Finance Professor Matthew Cain analyzed the M&A related litigation during the period 2005 to 2010. I discussed this article in a prior post, here. In a newly released February 2, 2012 paper entitled “Takeover Litigation in 2011” (here), Professors Davidoff and Cain supplement their prior research with the preliminary statistics for takeover litigation in 2011.

 

The authors review all 2011 transactions involving U.S. exchange traded companies with a deal size over $100 million, an offer price of at least $5 per share, with a publicly available merger agreement and a closing date by January 12, 2012. There were 103 transactions that met these criteria, which represents a slight decline from the 124 transactions in 2010. However, the 2011 figures do not include pending transactions from 2011, so these figures could change as more of the deals are completed.

 

But while the absolute number of transactions declined slightly in 2011, the number of transactions that attracted lawsuits increased, at least as a percentage matter. The authors found that while 84.6% of mergers attracted litigation in 2010, the percentage rose to 94.2% in 2011. The authors noted  in their original paper that in 2005 only 38.7% of deals attracted litigation, so the litigation is now brought “at a rate almost 2.5 times that of 2005. The authors expect that as the pending 2011 deals are completed “we expect that the ultimate 2011 litigation rate will match or exceed the 94.2% figure.”

 

In addition, the mean number of complaints per deal remained basically constant in 2011, to with a 2011 per deal mean of 4.8, from 4.7 in 2010. These mean figures represent a doubling of the 2005 mean number of lawsuits of 2.2. The percentage of deals that attracted multistate litigation declined slightly to 47.4% in 2011, from 47.6% in 2010.

 

Disclosure only settlements increase to 84% of all 2011 settlements, compared to approximately 80 percent in 2010.

 

The authors note that “so far for 2011 average attorneys’ fee awards are down substantially.” The mean plaintiffs’ attorneys fees awarded in all settlements declined in 2011 to $784,000, from $1.255 million in 2010. The mean attorneys’ fee award was smaller in disclosure only settlements, with the 2011 mean disclosure only attorneys fee award of $530,000, down from$710,000 in 2010. The mean fee award for settlements that involved other consideration declined to $1.952 million in 2011, down from $3.284. However the decline in median fee awards for both disclosure settlements and other settlements was much slighter than the decline in the mean. The median 2011 disclosure only settlement fee award was $450,000, compared to $546,000 in 2010, and the median fee award in 2011 for settlements involving other consideration was $1.1 million, compared to $1.25 million in 2010.

 

Delaware drew a much larger share of M&A-related litigation in 2011. The state attracted 64.3% of all lawsuits involving target companies incorporated in Delaware or with their headquarters in Delaware, compared to 44.1% in 2010. The 2011 rate was “the highest rate in the seven years we have tracked these figures.”

 

Delaware also seems to be dismissing fewer cases, “thus allowing more cases to be settled.” 85.7% of Delaware cases settled in 2011, compared to 79% of 2010 cases. The authors note that this finding is consistent with the analysis in their earlier paper, noting that “when Delaware loses cases to other jurisdictions it historically has dismissed fewer cases and allowed more to settle, consistent with conduct designed to reattract litigation.”

 

Consistent with the overall 2011 attorneys’ fee award trends, Delaware awarded lower average fee awards in 2011. The mean 2011 Delaware fee award was $1.051 million, compared to $2.052 in 2010. Delaware did continue to award higher attorneys’ fees than other jurisdictions, as Delaware’s 2011 average of $1.051 million was substantially above the overall 2011 average of $784,000.  

 

The authors emphasize however that all of the 2011 statistics are preliminary “should be read with caution” particularly given the delay in the availability of some information (particularly with respect to attorneys’ fees). The authors expect to update their information as the year progresses.

 

Special thanks to Professor Davidoff for providing me with a copy of his latest paper.

 

A D&O Primer: Readers interesting in a good, basic overview of the D&O insurance policy will want to take a look at the recently published paper “D&O Insurance: A Primer” by Lawrence Trautman and our good friend  Kara Altenbaumer-Price. Their paper can be found here

 

2011 Securities Litigation Overview: The Haynes & Boone law firm has a February 3, 2012 memo entitled “Securities Litigation Year in Review 2011” (here) which has a detailed overview of 2011 securities litigation developments. The memo has several very interesting sections including a section on extraterritorial litigation; a section on litigation involving auditors; and a section on litigation involving rating agencies.  

 

In the wake of the disastrous April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP was hit with a wave of litigation from plaintiffs asserting claims of personal injury, wrongful death and property damage. The claimants also included BP shareholders raising allegations that they had been misled regarding BP safety efforts and processes. In a 129-page February 13, 2012 opinion (here), Southern District of Texas Judge Keith Ellison, while granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss certain of plaintiffs’ allegations, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss many of the allegations of BP investors who had purchased BP American Depositary Shares (ADS) on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

However Judge Ellison granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all of the claims – including claims asserted under New York state law and English common law – of U.S.-domiciled investors who purchased their BP shares on the London Stock Exchange.

 

Finally, in a separate 82-page order also dated February 13, 2012 (here), Judge Ellison granted without prejudice defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims on a separate group of Plaintiffs (the “Ludlow plaintiffs”).

 

Background

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill lasted for eighty seven days and cost BP somewhere between $20 billion and $40 billion. Over the course of the disaster, over four million barrels of oil spilled in the Gulf at a rate of about 60,000 per day. From the date of the initial explosion to the final date of the class period in the securities class action lawsuit, BP’s market capitalization fell over $91 billion.

 

As detailed here, investors filed the first of their securities class action lawsuits against BP, related entities and certain of its directors and officers in May 2010. The various suits were transferred to the Southern District of Texas. The cases were ultimately consolidated, and the New York Controller and the Ohio Attorney General were appointed as lead plaintiffs. Judge Ellison also appointed a separate subclass consisting of the Ludlow plaintiffs. The New York and Ohio plaintiffs alleged that BP had made a series of fraudulent misstatements about its safety efforts and procedures beginning in 2007. The Ludlow plaintiffs’ allegations related to specific statements about the company’s Gulf operations in the thirteen months prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

 

The New York and Ohio plaintiffs named as defendants BP, certain BP-related entities and ten former directors and officers. The Ludlow plaintiffs alleged claims against certain BP entities and nine individual defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss.

 

The Court’s February 13, 2012 Rulings

In his February 13 opinions, Judge Ellison agreed with the defendants that certain of the New York and Ohio plaintiffs’ allegations were legally insufficient, and that the plaintiffs’ allegations as to certain of the individual defendants were also insufficient. However, he also held, at least with respect to the claims of ADS investors, that other allegations were sufficient and that adequate claims had been asserted against the BP entities, former BP CEO Tony Hayward, and against Douglas Suttles, BP’s Chief Operating Officer for Exploration and Production from January 2009 to January 2011.

 

Judge Ellison held that the ADS investors had adequately pled misrepresentations regarding BP’s progress in the year’s preceding the Deepwater Horizon disaster in implementing the recommendations of an independent committee BP had organized and that had been chaired by former U.S. Senator Howard Baker (the so-called Baker Report); regarding its ability to respond to a spill in the Gulf of Mexico; regarding its reported retaliation against employees who raised safety concerns; and regarding post-spill estimates of the spill amounts. Judge Ellison also found that he could not conclude at this stage that the alleged misrepresentations were immaterial.

 

With respect to the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the company’s implementation of the Baker Report recommendations, Judge Ellison said that “the Deepwater Horizon explosion, subsequent investigation, and other facts Plaintiffs allege pointing to similarities between the Deepwater Horizon accident and BP’s history of safety failures support Plaintiffs’ contention that BP seriously overstated the ‘progress’ it had made in implementing the Baker Panel’s recommendations.”

 

Judge Ellison also found that the plaintiffs had “sufficiently pleaded facts to demonstrate that BP misrepresented the size of the spill it was prepared to respond to in the Gulf and misrepresented the Company’s general spill response capabilities.”

 

In addition, he found that “the alleged facts sufficiently, even forcefully, establish that BP was knowingly retaliating against workers who reported safety concerns, even while issuing statements explicitly denying any retaliation.”

 

Judge Ellison granted the motions of eight of the ten individual defendants, ruling either that the plaintiffs had not adequately tied the individuals to the allegedly misleading statements or had not adequately alleged scienter. However, he concluded that the scienter allegations were sufficient as to the BP entity defendants, Hayward and Suttles. With respect to Hayward, Judge Eillson noted that “Hayward defined his position as CEO to include a special and targeted focus on process safety. Taking him at his own word, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded scienter with respect to Hayward.”

 

With respect to the BP entities and Suttles, Judge Ellison focused in particular on the disclosures following the accident regarding the size of the spill and BP’s recovery capabilities. He observed that “the difference between what BP was actually able to recover and what it claimed it could recover is so great that the projected numbers … appeared to have been invented out of thin air.” Though BP claimed it could recover nearly 500,000 barrels of oil a day, forty-nine days after the explosion, BP was recovering only 15,000 barrels a day.

 

However, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Judge Ellison granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims of U.S. investors who had purchased ordinary BP shares on the London Stock Exchange. He also held that these investors New York common law class action claims were precluded under SLUSA. Finally, he held that the Court lacked original jurisdiction over these investors claims under English law, holding that because the Court lacked jurisdiction over the Section 10(b) claims, the court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the Englsh law claims.

 

In granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Ludlow plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice, Judge Ellison found that certain of the defendants’ statements in the months preceding the Deepwater Horizon disaster were materially misleading. However, with respect to those statements, Judge Ellison found that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled scienter. Judge Ellison observed that “the court is acutely aware that federal legislation and authoritative precedents have created for plaintiffs in all securities actions formidable challenges to successful pleading. Today’s decision is a reflection of that. By no means, however, does the Court mean to signal that no pleadings that Plaintiffs could proffer would be successful. An amended complaint may well be able to adduce additional information responsive to this Court’s concerns.” He granted the Ludlow plaintiffs’ twenty days in which to file an amended complaint.

 

Discussion

Though Judge Ellison’s rulings eliminate many of the New York and Ohio plaintiffs’ allegations and several of the individual defendants, substantial parts of their claims survived the dismissal motion and will go forward. Moreover, the possibility remains that the Ludlow plaintiffs may be able to amend their pleadings sufficiently to survive a renewed motion to dismiss.

 

The dismissal of the ordinary shareholders’ claims is a more substantial blow. As Nate Raymond notes in his February 13, 2012 article on Am Law Litigation Daily about Judge Ellison’s rulings (here), the ADS investors may represent a smaller part of BP investors.

 

Nevertheless, the claims that will for sure going forward are substantial. In his recitation of these allegations, Judge Ellison betrayed a sense of outrage, undoubtedly a reflection of the magnitude of this disaster. Neither the survival of these allegations nor the Court’s unmistakable sense of outrage bodes well for BP. The possibility of a trial in the Southern District of Texas is a prospect that BP could not rationally contemplate. However, the nature and magnitude of the allegations and the sheer size of the market cap loss could make any attempt to settle this case extremely difficult, notwithstanding the reduced size of the investor class. For all of these reasons, it will be very interesting to watch this case as it goes forward.

 

Judge Ellison’s holdings regarding the U.S. investors who purchased their shares on the London exchange add an interesting additional element to his opinion. His ruling that Morrison precludes the claims of these investors (sometimes referred to as F-squared investors, because the involve U.S. investors who purchased shares in a foreign company on a foreign exchange), is consistent with rulings of other courts who have been faced with f-squared investor claims in the wake of Morrison. However, his conclusion that the New York common law claims were precluded under SLUSA and that he lacked jurisdiction over the English law claims are interesting and could be important in other cases where plaintiffs’ seek to circumvent Morrison. (It is worth noting in that regard that the court presiding over the Toyota shareholders’ securities class action has rejected the efforts of plaintiffs in that case to rely on Japanese law.)

 

Alison Frankel has a detailed analysis of the Court’s consideration of the Morrison issues in her February 13, 2012 post on Thomson Reuters News & Insight, here.

 

The fact is, however, that these F-Squared investors have just as much reason to feel aggrieved by the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations as the ADS investors. The F-squared investors just don’t get access to a U.S .court, which leaves them with the dilemma of whether they can pursue their claims elsewhere. Hurdles to trying to pursue these kinds of claims in England (lack of class action procedures, loser pays rules) might encourage these displaced investors to consider claims elsewhere – perhaps Canada or the Netherlands? It will be interesting to see whether these investors try their luck elsewhere.

 

Judge Ellison’s concluding remarks in which he granted the Ludlow plaintiffs leave to attempt to replead their allegation sounded remarkably sympathetic. He not only acknowledged how hard it is for plaintiffs to try to overcome the threshold pleading obstacles, but he sounded like he was sorry about it, as if he felt that  perhaps that plaintiffs ought not to be faced with such onerous initial pleading hurdles. Those sentiments are of course cold comfort to the Ludlow plaintiffs if they are unable to overcome the pleading hurdles with their amended pleadings. (For those who are curious, Ellison, who was a Rhodes scholar and who clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun, was appointed to the bench by President Clinton.)

 

One final note. I was struck in reading Judge Ellison’s opinion how influenced he was by BP’s communications after the disaster. These opinions provide a very stark reminder that the way that a reporting company manages bad news can substantially affect the company’s securities litigation exposure. These opinions and Judge Ellison’s retelling of the tale provide some pretty stark lessons for other companies trying to deal with bad news. A negative lesson from these circumstances is that there are things a company can do to avoid further damaging the company even after disaster has struck – and there are things a company can do to make things worse, too

. 

A February 13, 2012 Bloomberg article regarding Judge Ellison’s rulings can be found here. In an earlier post (here) I discuss Judge Ellison’s September 2011 ruling dismissing the BP Deepwater Horizon derivative suit in favor of an English forum.

 

 

During last week’s PLUS D&O Symposium, several of the panels discussed the problems surrounding the current onslaught of M&A-related litigation – and appropriately so, as the surging levels of M&A litigation is one of the most distinct and troubling current litigation trends. During the course of the discussion at the conference, several of the speakers referenced developments, materials and statistics. I thought it might be useful to assemble these various references in one site. (I have linked to some of these resources in prior posts on this site.)

 

First, though, by way of background about M&A-related litigation developments, I thought it might be useful to reference and to link to a recent paper that provides a good introductory explanation of what the M&A-related litigation is all about. In a February 6, 2012 paper entitled “Anatomy of a Merger Litigation” (here), Douglas Clark of the Wilson Sonsini law firm and Marcia Kramer Mayer of NERA Economic Consulting walk through the litigation developments surrounding a single merger transaction, by way of illustration and as a vehicle to discuss and consider a variety of aggregate statistics regarding merger litigation. The paper provides a useful starting point for understanding the current M&A-related litigation phenomenon. NERA’s related statistical analysis of M&A litigation can be found here.

 

With respect to the conference panels, I am sure that many attendees were as struck as I was by the statement of Stanford Law School Professor Michael Klausner that if you take state court M&A-related litigation into account, then corporate and securities litigation filings are at “an all-time high.” I have in fact made the same point myself, but it just has so much more credibility coming from Professor Klausner. In making these statements, Professor Klausner was referring (with respect to the state court M&A litigation) to the recent Cornerstone Research paper entitled “Recent Developments in Shareholder Litigation Involving Mergers and Acquisitions” (here).

 

In connection with the initial panel discussion of these litigation statistics, John Spiegel of the Munger Tolles law firm referred to a recent paper by Ohio State University Professor Steven Davidoff and Notre Dame University Finance Professor Matthew Cain. The January 1, 2012 paper, entitled “A Great Game: The Dynamics of State Competition and Litigation” can be found here. (I discussed Professors Davidoff and Cain’s paper in a prior post, here.)

 

Among the many issues discussed relating to the M&A-related litigation were the problems associated with multiple suits pending in separate jurisdictions relating to the same transaction. Among the suggestions that have been proposed as a way to avert the problems associated with multi-jurisdiction litigation and to discourage plaintiffs from forum shopping is the adoption by companies of a by-law amendment designating Delaware as the sole forum for all corporate and securities litigation. This suggestion has attracted a great deal of interest and a number of companies have adopted by-law amendments designating Delaware as the sole forum for corporate and securities litigation.

 

As several of the panelists mentioned during the conference, certain plaintiffs’ lawyers have now launched a litigation assault on these by-law amendments. On Monday and Tuesday this past week, the lawyers filed at least nine complaints against companies that had adopted these types of by-law amendments. Nate Raymond’s February 8, 2012 Am Law Litigation Daily article discussing the suits can be found here. Alison Frankel’s February 8, 2012 article on Thomson Reuters News & Insight about the cases can be found here. Francis Pileggi’s February 7, 2012 post about the cases on his Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation blog can be found here.

 

The nine companies targeted in the suits are: Chevron; Priceline.com; AutoNation; Curtiss-Wright; Danaher Corporation; Franklin Resources; Navistar International; SPX Corporation: and Superior Energy Services. An example of one of the complaints, which are substantially the same, can be found here.

 

The plaintiffs complain that the by-law applies to broad categories of kinds of litigation, is not limited just to derivative or class litigation, and applies to individual claims. But while the shareholders are required by the by-laws to bring their claims in Delaware, the bylaws provide no forum restrictions on the corporations themselves. The plaintiffs also complain that the bylaws seemingly require claim to be brought in Delaware even where there may not be personal jurisdiction over prospective defendants (for example, in connection with claims against individual directors and officers).

 

The plaintiffs in these suits seek a judicial declaration that the by-laws are invalid. The interesting attribute of the by-laws in dispute is that in each case, the by-laws were adopted by board action and not put to shareholder vote. So even if these particular board adopted by-laws are struck down, the cases may not address the question of whether a forum selection by-law that has been adopted by shareholder vote can be enforced (for example, on former shareholders, or even where there is no personal jurisdiction over prospective defendants).

 

It is worth noting that in the only judicial decision to date to consider a forum selection by-law, the by-law was found to be unenforceable. As discussed here (scroll down), in January 2011, Northern District of California Judge Richard Seeborg found Oracle’s forum selection by-law to be unenforceable, in part because it had not been put to shareholder vote. Because Seeborg was applying federal common law rather than Delaware law, his ruling may have only limited impact on the Delaware proceedings.

 

At least one member of the Delaware Chancery Court has voiced his approval at least of the concept of a forum selection by law; in the Revlon Shareholders’ Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery suggested that corporations organized under Delaware law are "free" to adopt "charter provisions selecting an exclusive forum or inter-entity disputes." In the wake of this suggestion, many lawyers began to recommend that their client companies adopt charter provisions designating the Delaware Court of Chancery as the preferred forum. The newly filed litigation may provide guidance on this important issue.

 

Finally, if you have not yet checked it out, the PLUS Blog has a number of video highlights from the PLUS D&O Symposium, including among other things an interview with yours truly.

 

Another FDIC Failed Bank Lawsuit: Another topic of discussion at the PLUS D&O Symposium was the growing wave of FDIC litigation against former directors and officers of failed banks. On Thursday, February 9, 2012, the FDIC filed its latest lawsuit in the District of Nevada, against four former officers of the failed Silver State Bank of Henderson, Nevada. The FDIC’s complaint can be found here.

 

The lawsuit is the 22nd that the FDIC has brought as part of the current bank wave. Interestingly, this complaint was brought well over three years after the September 2008 failure of Silver State Bank. Informed sources advise that the parties had entered a tolling agreement. A February 10, 2012 Las Vegas Review-Journal article discussing the new suit can be found here.

 

A Preview of Warren Buffett’s Annual Letter to Shareholders: Berkshire Hathaway’s 2011 annual report will not be published for a few more weeks yet. But readers interested in a preview of Warren Buffet’s annual letter to Berkshire shareholders, which is the highlight of the company’s annual report, may want to take a few minutes to review an excerpt of the forthcoming letter that was published on February 9, 2012 in a blog on the CNN Money website (refer here). The basic thrust of the excerpt is that due to the impact of inflation and taxation, stocks outperform bonds and gold. The interesting excerpt is vintage Buffett.

 

“Investing,” Buffett writes, “is forgoing consumption now in order to have the ability to consume more at a later date.” Real risk then is not volatility, but the possibility that your investment will lose purchasing power — that is, that you will actually only be able to consume less later. Investments denominated in currentcy, such as bonds or money market funds, though often charactized as "safe"  lose value due to the "inflation tax," not to mention actual taxes. Buffet says, "right now, bonds should come with a warning label." .

 

A Piano Duet: For today’s musical interlude, I feature a video of a 90-year old couple, playing an entertaining piano duet in the atrium of the Mayo Clinic. They have been married 62 years and they can still play a mean piano.

 

Even as the number of bank failures now appears to be winding down, the FDIC’s failed bank litigation filings seem to just be ramping up. With now 21 lawsuits filed as part of the current wave of bank failures, it may be possible to try to make some generalizations about the lawsuits so far. In a February 1, 2012 post on BankDirector.com entitled “Characteristics of FDIC Lawsuits against Directors & Officers of Failed Financial Institutions” (here), Cornerstone Research takes a look at the FDIC’s failed bank lawsuits to date and finds, among other things,  that the suits so far have involved larger institutions within the same geographic concentrations as the bank failures themselves.  As discussed below, Cornerstone Research’s various findings may have important implications for the lawsuit filings that are yet to come.

 

The Cornerstone Research study reports that the FDIC has filed lawsuits so far in connection with only about 4.7% of financial institutions failures since January 1, 2007. Two suits were filed in 2010, 16 in 2011, and three so far in 2012. The study also reports that on average the FDIC has waited about 2.2 years after the date of an institution’s failure to file a lawsuit.

 

The lawsuits so far have “tended to target larger failed institutions,” with the 20 institutions so far involved in the 21 lawsuits to date having had median total assets of $882 million, compared with median total assets of $241 million for all failed financial institutions. The 20 institutions have had a median estimated cost to the FDIC of $179 million, compared with the medial estimated costs of $60 million for all failed banks.

 

The geographic mix of lawsuits has paralleled the location of failed institutions, with the largest concentrations of both bank failures and lawsuits in Georgia, Illinois and California. The one exception, the report notes, is Florida, which has been the location of 14 percent of all failures since 2007, but where no FDIC failed bank lawsuits have been filed yet.

 

The 21 lawsuits so far have involved 178 former directors and officers. In six of the cases, only inside directors and officers have been named as defendants, but in the remaining 15 cases, outside directors were also named as defendants. Three of the suits have also named D&O insurers as defendants (about which refer, for example, here); and at least one suit has included the failed bank’s outside law firm as a defendant (refer here). Three cases have involved the spouses of former directors and officers (refer, for example, here).

 

The aggregate damages sought in the 21 complaints are $1.98 billion. The average and median damages sought is $104 million and $40 million, respectively. Losses on commercial real estate loans and on acquisition, development and construction loans are the most common bases of alleged damages. As the report notes about the sources of alleged damages, “despite the widespread problems in residential lending and residential real estate markets, fewer lawsuits focused on those types of lending.”

 

The report notes that three of the FDIC’s cases have settled so far: the WaMu case (about which refer here); the First National Bank of Nevada case (about which refer here); and the Corn Belt Bank & Trust Company case (the settlement details of which have not yet been publicly disclosed).

 

Discussion

Obviously there is a long way to go in the current bank failure litigation wave. The 4.7% percent of bank failures that have involved litigation so far compares to the rate during the S&L crisis, when the FDIC filed lawsuits against directors and officers of the failed institutions in about 24% of all bank failures. Indeed, though the FDIC has filed only 21 lawsuits so far, involving 20 institutions and 178 former directors and officers and aggregate claimed damages of $1.98 billion, , the FDIC’s website states that as of January 18, 2012, the FDIC has authorized lawsuits in connection with 44 failed institutions against 391 institutions, claiming damages of at least $7.7 billion.

 

Perhaps even more significantly, the FDIC has increased these authorization numbers each month for the past several months – and the number of failed institutions has also continued to increase, as well. In other words, just the suits authorized so far implies quite a number of lawsuits yet to come, and likelihood of increased numbers of future authorization suggests an even greater number of suits ahead. The FDIC may or may not wind up filings suits in connection with 24% of the failed institutions this time around as it did during the S&L crisis, but we still could be in for a substantial amount of future litigation.

 

The substantial gap between the $7.7 billion of claimed damages in the cases the FDIC has authorized to date, and the aggregate of $1.98 billion of claimed damages in the cases the FDIC has filed so far, suggests that the suits that have been authorized but not yet filed involve larger failed  institutions.

 

The Cornerstone Research report’s analysis supports this suggestion that there may be a backlog of as yet unfiled cases involving larger institutions, and not just because the report’s findings in general suggest that the FDIC has at least so far largely concentrated its litigation activities on larger institutions. As the report notes, though the FDIC has targeted two of the largest failed institutions (WaMu and IndyMac), “many of the other large or costly failures …have not yet been the target of FDIC lawsuits.” In light of the fact that many of the most costly failures occurred in 2008 and 2009 and given statute of limitations restrictions, “these would seem to be the most likely candidates for FDIC lawsuits in the near future. “

 

Taking this analysis and looking back at the costliest 2009 bank failures to assess the possible targets, some possible litigation examples might include Colonial Bank (August 2009 failure, $25 billion asset bank, $2.8 billion to the insurance fund); Guaranty Bank (August 2009 failure, $13 billion asset bank, $3 billion loss to the insurance fund); and Bank United (May 2009 failure, $12.8 billion asset bank, $4.9 billion loss to the insurance fund). Of course, whether or not there may be litigation involving these institutions remains to be seen, as would the merits of any litigation that might arise.

 

The report’s note that there has as yet been no litigation involving a failed bank located in Florida is an interesting insight. Given that over 60 institutions have failed in Florida since 2007, it seems likely that there future lawsuit filings might involve failed Florida banks.

 

One concluding note in the Cornerstone Research report that is worth emphasizing is that a number of potential lawsuits have been resolved without litigation through mediation or negotiation, often involving the failed bank’s D&O carriers. There are no publicly available statistics on these out of court resolutions and their overall impact is hard to assess. Though the impact is not quantifiable, these types of resolutions may be an important part of the FDIC’s post-failure salvage operations.

 

In any event, it does seem probable that the current wave of bank failure litigation not only has a long way to run but will also continue to grow in the near term. We can only hope that Cornerstone Research will continue to update and publish their analysis as the process unfolds.

 

Many thanks to a loyal reader for sending me a link to the Cornerstone Research report.

 

Carlyle Group Drops Bid to Require Investors to Arbitrate Claims: In a prior post (here), I commented on the unusual effort of the Carlyle Group in connection with its upcoming IPO to require investors to arbitrate rather than to litigate claims. As Victor Li discusses in a February 3, 2012 Am Law Litigation Daily article (here), Carlyle Group has announced that in response to pressure from the SEC and others, the company has dropped its efforts in required arbitration. As Li notes, Carlyle Group’s efforts had been sharply criticized by several U.S. senators and numerous others, and also ran contrary to long-standing SEC prohibitions against approval of arbitration provisions.

 

Notwithstanding Carlyle Group’s withdrawal of its arbitration proposal, the issue may yet come to a head in the weeks ahead, in light of the efforts of investors at Gannett and Pfizer to have included in their companies’ 2012 proxy ballots shareholder proposals to required investor claims to be litigated. The question of the propriety of a corporate provision requiring the arbitration of shareholder claims may yet be aired at the SEC.

 

The Week Ahead: This week I will be attending the PLUS D&O Symposium at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in New York City. On Wednesday, February 8, 2012, I will be moderating a panel entitled “Financial Institutions Underwriting: Is it Safe to Come Out Yet?” Joining me on the panel are my good friends Jennifer Fahey of AON; Tim Braun of AXIS; Steven Goldman of ACE: and Dan Gamble of Alterra.

 

I know many of the readers of this blog will also be attending the Symposium. I hope readers will feel free to greet me, particularly those whom I have not previously met.

 

I know that many attending this larger conference, particularly first time attendees, can find the crowded sessions and events a little intimidating. Some may even find that despite – or ironically because of – the crowds, it is hard to meet people. I can’t provide any sure fire way to overcome these challenges and to succeed in making many new professional contacts. But one loyal reader did send me a link to an article that may be useful to at least some conference attendees trying to work their way into the mix.

 

The January 25, 2012 article is from the Harvard Business Review blog, and it is entitled “The Introvert’s Guide to Networking,” which can be found here. There are a number of useful items in this short article, but the best piece is the author’s observation that she “stopped being afraid to be the one to reach out.” This observation is particularly useful in connection with the PLUS D&O Symposium.

 

My observations after many years in this industry are, first, that there are many people around who have trouble dealing the large crowds at industry events, so you are not alone, and, second, most people are as interested in meeting you as you are in meeting them, and so the best approach is just to go up to someone you don’t know and introduce yourself. Also, don’t be afraid to ask others to introduce you to people you would like to meet. The great thing is that we have a very friendly, sociable industry and most people are happy to be introduced.

 

I look forward to seeing everyone in New York.

 

Recent sharply-worded accusations that the FDIC had failed to preserve documents attracted quite a bit of media attention. For example, a January 27, 2012 Wall Street Journal article reported the charges of counsel for two former IndyMac bank executives, repeating counsel’s remarks accusing the agency of a “stunning display of incompetence” for failing to preserve documents. Counsel made these statements in a filing in an action the FDIC had filed against fhe individuals in its capacity as receiver for the failed bank.

 

The Journal article also quoted the individual defendants’ counsel’s statement that “the breadth and depth of the government’s document-retention failures are staggering, and violations of this magnitude rarely occur,” and that “it is a stunning display of incompetence from an agency that is supposed to be an expert at seizing and managing banks.”

 

Based on these accusations, two of the inidividual defendants  sought sanctions against the government for willful spoliation of evidence, dismissal of the relevant counts of the lawsuit and an adverse instruction to the jury based on the government’s failure to preserve evidence.

 

The defense counsel’s provocative language may have succeeded in getting his accusations published in the Wall Street Journal. However, the language proved less successful when the matter came before Central District of California Judge Dale Fischer in a hearing on January 30, 2012. As reflected in a transcript of the hearing, Judge Fischer had quite a lot to say about counsel’s approach, including in particular, counsel’s use of language.

 

Judge Fischer started her remarks with a comment about counsel’s pleading tactics and then went on from there:

 

THE COURT: Now, there were a number of declarations attached to the reply that apparently were not filed immediately after they were signed. Why was that?

 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, we waited to file them with our reply.

 

THE COURT: And you seriously thought that was the appropriate approach?

 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, I did, your honor.

 

THE COURT: Well, for future reference, it wasn’t. Don’t hold back evidence that relates to your motion until after the opposing party files its opposition and then just stick it to them at the end. So I’m not sure why you thought that was appropriate, but now you know.

 

Along those lines: I also want to tell you, I don’t know why lawyers do this, and there’s a lot of them in the room so take heed, all of you, language like failures are staggering, violations of this magnitude rarely occur, stunning display of incompetence, bitter irony, breathtaking dereliction of duty are not only unpersuasive, they’re somewhat annoying. I don’t have time for rhetoric. I’m really, really busy. Why anyone would want this job, I don’t know…

 

But in any event, it’s just – I don’t know whether you stay up nights trying to think of clever phrases, but trust me, no judge that I’ve ever spoken to has ever said, Boy, can that guy turn a phrase. They only say, Boy, why didn’t he get to the point. So, please, in future pleadings, remember that.

 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, your Honor.

 

THE COURT: In addition to that, I’ve been around awhile both in practice and on the bench, so I suspect I’ve seen a few more cases than you, and really, it’s not all that staggering and it’s not all that great a magnitude, so when your experience and mine differ, it just takes all of the punch out of those comments.

 

To make matters even worse, Counsel, your statement that the government failed to make any effort to preserve the documents is simply false. And your statements in your papers so often go beyond the bounds of zealous advocacy that I have to say your papers had very little persuasive value. In fact, as I was trying to check some of the references you made to deposition testimony, I looked at it three or four times because I thought I must be searching for the wrong page because the pages you were citing to had oftentimes no relationship to the proposition you were citing them for. You started off extremely poorly as I started reading the papers, and I had little confidence in anything you had to say as I went through them.

 

Judge Fischer denied the defendants’ motion.

 

Readers of this blog may also be interested to read the discussion in the hearing transcript, beginning at page 27, about the role that the D&O insurance program in the ongoing case. From reading the transcript, it appears that the individual defendants contend that there a second $80 million insurance tower is relevant to this claim, although defense costs are being funded out of a first $80 million tower. The lawyers present at the hearing disagreed about the exact amount, but it appears that defense expenses to date in all of the various IndyMac-related lawsuits have totaled $35 million or $45 million. There were various references in the transcript to the lack of responses from the carrier. (The make-up of the two insurance towers and a prior coverage dispute involving IndyMac’s D&O insurance are discussed here.)

 

Also, and though it is difficult to discern from the bare face of the transcript, it appears that the reason that the FDIC wants to take this case to trial is to substantiate damages in excess of the applicable policy limits, in an apparent attempt to impose a judgment in excess of the limits on the D&O insurer(s).

 

As Judge Fischer commented at the outset of the discussion about the D&O Insurance, the case “seems to be insurance-company driven.” Which corroborates a point I have made before on this blog, that the D&O insurance may be the real battleground in the FDIC’s failed bank litigation.

 

This case, which was filed in July 2010, was the first that the FDIC filed against former officers of a failed bank as part of the current bank failure wave, as discussed at greater length here. It is also one of two FDIC actions against former IndyMac officials. The agency separately filed an action against the failed bank’s former CEO, as discussed here.

 

Judge Fischer’s aside that she doesn’t know why anyone would want to be a federal judge, triggered as it was by her frustration with the  matter before her, was remarkably like my own reaction as I read through the transcript. As I read along, my own decision years ago to walk away from the active practice of law seemed more and more like a really smart move.

 

Reading about the tone and temper of the parties’ pleadings in this case reminded me of the lyrics from the Crosby, Stills & Nash song “You Don’t Have to Cry,” which I often sing to myself when I hear about litigators bashing each other: “You are living a reality I left years ago, it quite nearly killed me/In the long run, it will make you cry, make you crazy and old before your time.”

 

What Do You Make, He Asked?: If you have not seen this video about teachers, drop everything and watch it right now. Thank you.

 

Securities class action lawsuit filings in Canada hit record levels in 2011 according to a new report from NERA Economic Consulting. The January 31, 2012 report, entitled “Trends in Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2011 Update” (here) concludes that the persistent growth in Canadian securities class action lawsuit filings “is not a transient phenomenon.”

 

According to the report, in 2011, there were 15 new securities class action lawsuit filing in 2011, more than in any previous year. The 2011 filings bring the total number of pending and unresolved Canadian securities class action lawsuit filings to 45.

 

The growth in securities lawsuit filings in Canada is largely a result of the growth in new filings under Bill 198, the Ontario legislation that amended the Ontario securities laws with regard to issuer’s continuous disclosure obligations. The report notes that there have been a total 35 Bill 198 cases since the Act became effective at the end of 2005, including nine in 2011. The Bill 198 cases account for more than two-thirds of all of the suits filed between 2008 and 2011. The other claims filed in 2011 include, among other things, one prospectus claim; one related to a takeover bid; two related to investment fund management; and two related to Ponzi schemes.

 

Just as was the case with 2011 securities lawsuit filing in the U.S, a significant driver in the 2011 Canadian filings was the rise in filings against Chinese companies whose shares trade on North American exchanges. Among the highest profile case in Canada was the lawsuit involving Sino-Forest, whose shares trade on the Toronto stock exchange. (As noted here, U.S. investors recently have attempted to bring a class action in U.S. federal court against Sino Forest alleging violations of NY state law.) At least three of the other new 2011 filings involve Chinese companies.

 

Interestingly, the report notes that one Chinese company involved in a 2010 Canadian securities lawsuit filing did not have shares listed on a Canadian exchange, but did have shares listed on Nasdaq. So far, the case, involving Canadian Solar, has been permitted to proceed.

 

Canadian companies with listings on U.S. exchanges also face a securities class action litigation risk. The report notes that in 2011, five Canadian domiciled companies were named as defendants in six securities class action lawsuits in the U.S. At least one of these companies was also named in a securities class action lawsuit in Ontario. Since 1987, Canadian-domiciled companies have been named in 74 securities lawsuits in the U.S. Of these, 21 had parallel actions in the U.S., although most of these parallel actions were filed after the enactment of Bill 198.

 

Historically, class action lawsuit filings in Canada have been concentrated in the financial sector, as well as the energy and minerals sectors. In 2011, five of the Canadian filings involved companies in the minerals sector and four involved companies in the finance sector.

 

Only two cases settled in 2011, involving total payments of $58.6 million. Of the ten settlements so far of Bill 198 cases, the average settlement amount is $10 million and the median settlement is $6.2 million. The report notes that given the small number of settlements to date, “it is unclear whether these are indicative of the size of settlements that should be expected in the future.”

 

The report concludes that the upward filing trend is likely to continue in 2012 and beyond. The report’s authors cite a number of factors in support of their conclusion that “we are likely to continue to see an increasing number of new cases filed,” including the growth in the Canadian securities class action bar; the track record that has been established with the certification of global classes (in the IMAX and Arctic Glacier cases) and with plaintiffs being given leave to proceed in Bill 198 cases; the success of counsel in achieving large settlements (and obtaining large fees); and the barriers in the U.S. under the Morrison decision to investors who purchased shares outside the U.S. proceeding in U.S. courts.

 

Discussion

Although the number of securities class action lawsuit filings in Canadian courts remains well below the number of filings in the U.S., both the growth in the filings and the indicated trends suggest that Canadian securities class action litigation could be increasingly important.

 

The report’s comment about the growth in the size of the Canadian plaintiffs’ securities bar may be the most telling point. Clearly, the plaintiffs’ attorneys sense that there is an opportunity. As non-U.S. investors search for alternative ways to pursue claims in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison, Canada may be emerging as one of the most attractive alternatives. The Canadian courts’ willingness to certify global classes in the IMAX and Arctic Glacier cases suggests the opportunity for investors to pursue their claims in Canadian courts.

 

Among the many very interesting comments in the NERA study of Canadian securities litigation was the comment about the action that is pending in Canada against Canadian Solar, Inc. The case has been allowed to proceed so far, even though the company’s shares did not trade on a Canadian securities exchange but did trade on Nasdaq. Although there undoubtedly is more to the story, it is interesting to note that the investors chose to file their action in Canada. The company has also been sued in a separate action in the U.S. (refer here), but the circumstances do suggest the possibility of an emerging jurisdictional competition.

 

The sense of a jurisdictional competition is reinforced with the filing of the state law class action filed by Sino-Forest in the U.S. The same circumstances were also the subject of a separate action in Canadian court.

 

The emergence and growth of significant securities class action litigation outside the U.S. is one of the most interesting developments in recent years, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in the Morrison case has added increased importance to the issue. It could be increasingly important to watch developments in Canada and elsewhere.

 

Special thanks to NERA for providing me with a copy of their report.

 

In its latest failed bank lawsuit, the FDIC, in its capacity as receiver of the failed County Bank of Merced, California, has filed a complaint against five former officer of the bank. The FDIC’s complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 27, 2012, just short of three years from the date of the bank’s closure. A copy of the FDIC’s complaint can be found here.

 

County Bank failed on February 6, 2009 and the FDIC was appointed as its receiver. The FDIC’s lawsuit has been filed against five former officers of the bank, each of whom served on the bank’s Executive Loan Committee. The complaint alleges claims against them for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, in connection with 12 loans the bank made between December 2005 and June 2008, which the FDIC says caused the bank losses in excess of $42 million.

 

The FDIC alleges that the five defendants caused or allowed the bank to make “Imprudent real estate loans, typically for the construction and development of residences.” The complaint alleges that the bank’s real estate lending represented “significant departures from safe and sound practices.” The complaint further alleges that the bank’s management “disregarded the Bank’s credit policies and approved loans to borrowers who were not credit worthy and/or for projects that provided insufficient collateral and guarantees for repayment.”  The complaint further alleges that the bank’s management “unwisely continued risky commercial real estate lending in a deteriorating market even after becoming aware of the market decline.”

 

The FDIC filed its complaint only days before the third anniversary of the bank’s closure – that is, just before the expiration of the statute of limitations period within which the FDIC could bring its claims. Up until this point during the current bank failure wave, the FDIC has been proceeding very deliberately, in most cases filing lawsuits only after two years or more has elapsed since the date of bank closure.

 

The FDIC’s filing of this action just before the end of the limitations period is reminder that notwithstanding the FDIC’s deliberate pace in filing these lawsuits, the FDIC does face certain absolute time deadlines. Moreover, this particular bank’s closure occurred at a time when the number of bank closures began to escalate rapidly. The FDIC took control of increasing numbers of banks as 2009 progressed and on in to early 2010, which means that the limitations period within which the FDIC will have to file lawsuits will be about to run out for a host of failed banks in the coming months.

 

There were a total of 140 bank failures in 2009, ten in February 2009 alone, after only 25 bank failures in all of 2008. The numbers of bank closures escalated even further after February 2009. Indeed, there 95 bank failures in the last six months of 2009. In other words, as we move through 2012, the FDIC will be approaching the statute of limitations deadline for increasing numbers of banks.

 

In light of the approaching limitations deadline the 2009 bank failures, it seems likely that over the next few months we will see a surge in case filings, many, like the complaint here, filed at the very end of the applicable limitations period.

 

In any event, the FDIC’s action in the County Bank case represents the twenty-first failed bank action the agency has filed so far as part of the current bank failure wave, and already the third so far in 2012. The FDIC’s first two actions this year, both of which were filed in Puerto Rico, are described here.

 

Year End Securities Litigation Review Webinar: On February 1, 2012 at 11:00 am EST, I will be participating in a year-end securities litigation review webinar sponsored by Advisen . The webinar will be moderated by Advisen’s Jim Blinn and will also include my good friend David Williams of Chubb. The webinar is free. To register and for additional information, refer here.

 

One feature of the recent changing mix of corporate and securities litigation has been the rise in the filing of follow-on derivative lawsuits in the wake of securities class action lawsuit filings. As Wilson Sonsini partner Boris Feldman recently noted, “like a moth drawn to a candle,” the derivative bar watches class action filings and “just cannot resist cribbing the class action complaints, even though the company’s setback does not suggest any breach of fiduciary duty.”

 

The rise in the number of follow-on derivative lawsuits seems to be attributable to the efforts of smaller or newer plaintiffs’ firms to try to get a piece of the action. The problem with these kinds of cases is that they just compound the defendant company’s litigation expense and threaten distraction from or even prejudice to the company’s defense in the class action suit – all as a result of a derivative action supposedly brought on the company’s behalf.

 

One way to try to reduce at least some of the potential evils associate with these follow-on suits would seem to be to stay the derivative suit until the securities suit has concluded. In many cases, the derivative plaintiffs agree to a stay. The question whether the court itself should order a stay of one of these follow-on suits was addressed in a January 27, 2012 Delaware Chancery Court opinion (here) in a derivative action involving SunPower Corporation.

 

The litigation arose after SunPower announced that it would have to restate its prior financials due to the underreporting of expenses at its Philippine manufacturing operations. Following these announcements, the company and several of its directors and officers were named as defendants in securities class action lawsuits (later consolidated) in the Northern District of California. The consolidated class action case was initially dismissed without prejudice, but the class action plaintiffs’ amended pleading survived the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss. The court’s December 19, 2011 denial of the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss can be found here.

 

Following the filing of the securities class action lawsuits, additional plaintiffs filed five derivative lawsuits in California state court, seeking indemnification from the individual defendants for any expenses the company incurs in the class actions. Those five California derivative actions were stayed by agreement.

 

However, yet another plaintiff filed a separate derivative action in Delaware Chancery Court, after having first exercised his rights to inspect the company’s books and records. The Delaware plaintiff contended that his access to confidential company documents has shown that the company had incurred million of dollars of costs, even before the class action lawsuits were filed, due to the accounting issues with the company’s Philippine operations.

 

The defendants moved to stay the Delaware plaintiffs’ action, arguing that proceeding with the derivative suit would prejudice the company’s defense in the securities suit. The defendants also argued that because the relief the Delaware derivative plaintiff seeks is largely contingent on the outcome of the securities suit, it would be premature for the derivative suit to proceed. The derivative plaintiff argued that because his filings were under seal, the defendants overstated the prejudice, He also argued that the because of the $8 million in expenses the defendants had already incurred in connection with the restatement, there were noncontingent damages ripe for adjudication.

 

In granting the defendants’ motion for a stay, Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons, Jr. concentrated on the overlap between the factual allegations in the class action lawsuit and in the derivative lawsuit. Both actions accused the individual defendants of having knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing or having ignored red flags. But, Parsons noted, the derivative plaintiff “makes these arguments on behalf of the corporation while the Securities Class Action plaintiffs make them against SunPower.”

 

Parsons said that “it is not practical for two actors … to pursue divergent strategies in two simultaneous actions on behalf of the same entity.” As a result, “simultaneous prosecution of both actions” would be “unduly complicated, inefficient and unnecessary.” The prosecution of the derivative suit would involve “taking actions designed to refute the merits of the Company’s defense of the Securities Action and vice versa.” This creates a “significant risk that the prosecution of [the derivative suit] will prejudice SunPower.” Parsons notes there is also a significant risk of inconsistent rulings.

 

Parsons also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the derivative suit was ripe for adjudication because at least a portion of the claimed damages are not contingent. Because the fill extent of the alleged damages cannot be known until the class action is resolved, “the wisdom as a practical matter of treating the indemnification claims as unripe until the liability for which the indemnification is sought is determined is plain.” Because the derivative claims cannot be adjudicated in full, the sensible ordering of events is for the class action to go first.

 

Accordingly, Parsons ordered the derivative suit to be stayed indefinitely, allowing the plaintiff to seek to have the stay lifted upon the earlier of the final dismissal of the securities class action or December 31, 2012.

 

Discussion

As discussed in a January 27, 2012 memorandum from the Morrison Foerster law firm (here), Vice Chancellor Parsons ruling provides “the clearest articulation to date of the danger follow-on derivative actions poste to corporations on whose behalf they are supposedly brought.” The ruling, according to the memo, “should prove a valuable guide to courts” trying to manage simultaneous derivative and class action litigation in the future.

 

The larger context for the problems Vice Chancellor Parson addressed is the increasing proliferation of conflicting litigation surrounding any type of corporate event. The phenomenon of multiple class action lawsuit filings following a stock drop has long been part of the corporate and litigation scene. These kinds of cases are more easily consolidated and managed. What has changed is increasing numbers of follow on derivative lawsuits, often, as here, filed in multiple jurisdictions, and which are not so easily consolidated or coordinated.

 

Just to quantify this problem and to proviide a little bit of historical context, in its 2011 securities class action litigation report, NERA Economic Consulting reported that the number of settled securities class action cases that were accompanied by parallel derivataive lawsuits has grown dramatically in recent years. NERA reports that prior to 2002 (when the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted) the number of settled cases that were accompanied by a parallel derivative action ranged between 11 and 22 percent a year. However, from 2007 through the first half of 2011, the range was from 56 to 65 percent.

 

The threat of prejudicing the defense of the securities class action lawsuit is only one of the problems associated with the increase in follow-on derivative litigation. The proliferation of multiple simultaneous suits in multiple jurisdictions imposes a costly and vexatious burden on the companies involved. The SunPower case provides a good illustration of these problems. The Delaware derivative plaintiffs alleges that the company “is largely self-insured so that expense, settlements or damages in excess of $5 million in these actions will not be recoverable” under insurance. The costs associated with the derivative plaintiffs’ action simply add to this burden. As NERA noted in its year-end securities litigation report, in commenting on the phenomenon of folllow-on derivative lawsuits, "to the extent [the individual defendants] have indemnification agreements or continue to hold board or management positions, derivative litigation may prove expensive for the issuer." 

 

Unfortunately for the company, the derivative action has merely been stayed, not dismissed, which raises the question of what will happen in the future. The likelihood is that the class action lawsuit will settle at some point. (Yes there is a chance that it will be resolved on summary judgment, and an even smaller chance that it will be resolved at trial, but the greatest likelihood is that it will be settled.) Given the apparent limited amount of insurance available, the class action settlement will likely be modest. And if the case settles, the stipulation undoubtedly will include the usual defense disclaimers of liability or wrongdoing.

 

At that point, the stayed derivative litigation will finally be ripe. But at that point, the remaining insurance will almost certainly be gone. The derivative plaintiffs, without the benefit of any factual findings in the class action suit, will have to try to establish liability, forcing the individual defendants to incur additional defense expenses (which almost certainly would be advanced to the defendants under the company’s indemnification provisions), all to try to extract some payment out of the personal assets of the individual defendants. Given these factors, it seems highly probable that any ultimate recovery in the derivative suit – and therefore any benefit to the company – would be slight. But in the meantime, the company and its senior management are forced to endure the burden and expense of continued, redundant litigation.

 

There may be (infrequent) occasions where this kind of liltigation-about-litigation is not burdensome, vexatious and wasteful. Nevertheless, it is very hard to observe the expansion of this kind of follow-on derivative litigation with anything but alarm. If, as seems likely at least for now, this kind of litigation is going to continue to increase, it is going to be increasingly important for courts to develop rules of the road, if for no other reason to make sure that these suits do not further harm the very companies on whose behalf they supposedly are brought. That is the reason I think Vice Chancellor Parsons ruling is important, because it represents a practical recognition that the courts are going to have to police things to prevent the whole process from getting out of control.

 

I know that the plaintiffs’ attorneys behind these cases will argue that the cases are necessary to protect companies from the expenses the corporate defendants are forced to incur when alleged management misconduct leads to shareholder litigation. Other observers might perhaps more accuratey characterize these cases as nothing more than a vehicle by which the plaintiffs’ firm involved is seeking to extract a fee.  I would argue that a better way to address the cost of litigation problem is through a prudent risk management approach including a comprehensive program of D&O insurance. If the company has an appropriate D&O insurance program in place, the class action litigation costs would not fall on the company, and there would be no even theoretical need for (or indeed any justification for) these types of follow-on lawsuits in most circumstances.

 

At least from the allegations Vice Chancellor Parsons recites in his opinion, it appears that this company carried only nominal amounts of D&O insurance. The amount and extent of litigation in which this company has become involved underscores the fact that in this day and age, well-advised firms should carry more than minimal amounts of insurance. Indeed, this case shows that in a changing litigation environment, traditional notions of limits adequacy may no longer be sufficient. The possibility that companies may have to be prepared to fund a multi-front defense suggests that companies may need more insurance than in the past in order to be fully protected.

 

A Dated Debate: We generally refer to the year 1901 as “nineteen-oh-one.” Similarly, 1909 is “nineteen-oh-nine.” But we refer to 1910 as “nineteen-ten” not “nineteen-and-ten.” My point here is that conversational conventions eventually tend toward to simplest and most economical expression.

 

In our current century, 2001 is referred to as “two thousand and one.” 2009 is referred to as “two thousand nine.” I suspect the convention will shift as the century progresses. For example, when we finally reach 2020 (if we do in fact make it that far), I feel quite certain the year will be referred to as “twenty-twenty” and not as “two thousand twenty.” Similarly, 2021 will be “twenty-twenty-one,” not “two thousand twenty one.”

 

Which brings me to the current year, 2012. Why do we refer to it as “two thousand twelve” rather than “twenty twelve”? I am not sure why, but “twenty twelve” is not in widespead usage. I feel quite certain that eventually we will all shift to the “twenty – “ formulation, just as a century ago, usage shifted to the “nineteen –“ custom.

 

Maybe it won’t be until 2020, but the “twenty –“nomenclature will eventually be the conversational way to refer to years during the current century. It may be too late now to change the way we refer to the current year, but it still may be possible to make some progress on this now.

 

As part of our forward-looking mission here at The D&O Diary, we would like to propose that we all get an early start on the rest of the century. Specifically, and with next year still a good eleven months off, we would like to respectfully suggest that everyone make a mutual commitment to refer to next year as “twenty-thirteen” rather than as “two thousand thirteen.” Why wait until 2020 to get on with the future?

 

I am sure many of you are wondering why I am so concerned about this. Here at The D&O Diary, we consider it part of our job to worry about these things so you don’t have to. Now remember, its “twenty thirteen,” not “two thousand thirteen.” O.K., everybody back to work.

 

There’s Nothing Quite Like a Real Book: Ironically, I first saw this video on my iPad. Ironically, it is a video about the magic of books. Irony notwithstanding, it is still a pretty cool video.

 

The changing mix of corporate and securities litigation is a recent phenomenon on which I have frequently commented on this blog. While identifying the fact of the change is relatively straightforward, explaining it is more challenging. According to a January 11, 2012 article in The Review of Securities & Commodities Regulation entitled “Shareholder Litigation After the Fall of an Iron Curtain” (here), written by Boris Feldman of the Wilson Sonsini law firm, the changing pattern in corporate and securities litigation filings is a result of changes in the plaintiffs’ securities litigation bar – particularly, the elimination of a dominant plaintiffs’ firm. These changes, according to Feldman, have resulted in the five recent securities litigation trends he identifies in his article.

 

For many years, according to the article, the Milberg Weiss law firm was the “dominant securities plaintiffs’ law firm.” Even after it split into two separate law firms on the East and West Coasts, it was, according to Feldman, “the 800-pound gorilla of the shareholder litigation jungle.” In addition to dominating the litigation, the firm “exercised some discipline” on the rest of the plaintiffs’ securities bar, demonstrating “substantial influence over smaller firms and parvenus.”

 

Now, “for reasons of retirement and incarceration,” the familiar patterns of the past have been disrupted. Feldman analogizes this disruption in the standard order of the securities litigation world to the disruptions that followed in the political world in the wake of the fall of the Iron Curtain.

 

Without a dominant firm, smaller firms are now “free agents,” and new entrants have appeared. These smaller and newer players are “less predictable (and often less rational).” According to Feldman, these changes in the plaintiffs’ bar explain five trends in shareholder litigation he identifies in his article.

 

First, Feldman notes the recent rise in multi-jurisdiction litigation, where a single company can face multiple suits in different jurisdictions arising out of the identical factual circumstances. Feldman notes that although this might have happened from time to time in the past, when it did, the plaintiffs firms worked things out among themselves. But this is far less common now. Instead, firms that have “decided they have a better shot at participating in the litigation” have consciously chosen to file outside the company’s home jurisdiction, particularly in connection with shareholder derivative litigation. This multiplication of litigation has forced corporate defendants to have to defend themselves in multiple courts, resulting in added expense and uncertainty.

 

The second trend Feldman notes is the proliferation of demand letters. In the past, plaintiffs would bypass this statutory prerequisite to the filing of derivative litigation, out of a concern that the demand represented a concession that demand was not futile. More recently, however, demand letters have become “fashionable,” as secondary players, eager “to get in on the action,” will submit a demand even if derivative litigation has already been filed. Feldman notes that this may “actually be advantageous to defendants,” as courts will often stay derivative litigation while the defendant company considers the demand.

 

Third, Feldman notes the rise of derivative litigation paralleling shareholder class action lawsuits. In the past, the type of stock drop that would trigger a 10b-5 class action would not also spawn a derivative suit, at least in the absence of a major accounting problem and restatement. Now, parallel derivative suits are “de rigeuer.” The plaintiffs bar now “just cannot resist cribbing the class complaints,” even though the company’s setback does not suggest any breach by the company’s board. This change is attributable to a simple explanation: “different suits for different folks.”

 

The fourth trend Feldman notes is the automatic filing of litigation when a merger is announced. When “giants roamed the earth,” there was merger objection litigation, but not every single time a merger was announced. Now the litigation is pervasive and it follows a standard pattern of an initial suit alleging a breach of fiduciary duty after the deal is announced, followed by an amended complaint alleging disclosure violations after the proxy has been filed. The other change Feldman notes about this litigation is that in the past, the litigation went away once the deal closed, as the defendants defeated the preliminary injunction seeking to block the deal. Now the merger suits are increasingly surviving the closing, based on amended allegations that “range from weak to laughable.” Though few of these suits result in a payout, the plaintiffs’ lawyers “persist,” seeking “a place in the sun.’

 

Finally, Feldman notes the rise in actions under Section 220 of the Delaware Code seeking to inspect the corporate defendant’s books and records. Feldman says there has been more of this litigation in the past year than in all prior recorded history. In part this rise is due to encouragement from members of the Delaware judiciary. But this rise is also attributable to a cottage industry of plaintiffs’ firms eager to “get in on the action.” Defendant companies find these suits impossible to avoid; whatever they produce, the plaintiffs ask for more until they have “created an impasse and gotten a ticket to sue.” Feldman suggests that this “epidemic” of Section 220 litigation is “unlikely to be solved without intervention by the Delaware legislature.”

 

Feldman closes by suggesting that in the current, rapidly changing world, the “more fragmented world of plaintiffs’ securities lawyers will continue to amaze and surprise us with their innovation and resilience.”

 

Very special thanks to Boris Feldman for sending me a link to his article.

 

In the FDIC’s latest lawsuit filed in its role as receiver of a failed bank, the FDIC not only named as defendants nineteen former directors and officers of the failed bank, but also included as defendants seventeen of their spouses and the failed bank’s D&O insurer. A copy of the FDIC’s January 18, 2012 complaint, filed in the agency’s capacity of receiver of the failed R-G Premier Bank of Puerto Rico, can be found here. UPDATE: See also the note below regarding the separate actoin filed in the District of Puerto Rico, involving the directors and officers of teh failed Westernbank Puerto Rico, which also involves D&O insurer defendants.

 

As discussed here, R-G Premier Bank failed on April 30, 2010. According to the FDIC’s complaint, its closure represented “one of the largest bank failures in Puerto Rico’s history, costing the Deposit Insurance Fund over $1.46 billion in losses.”

 

In its complaint, the FDIC asserts claims for gross negligence against certain former directors and officers of the failed bank, alleging that the bank’s losses and ultimate failure arose from the bank’s aggressive commercial lending. The complaint alleges that the commercial lending operations were essentially unsupervised, even though the commercial lending department “recklessly” pursued “explosive commercial loan growth.” The complaint alleges that the director and officer defendants “ignored numerous warnings from multiple sources about serious problems” in the bank’s management and lending operations.”

 

The complaint alleges that the director and officer defendants “exacerbated and accelerated” the bank’s loan losses “by robotically approving virtually any loan request that crossed their desks, even though such loan requests had been processed through the obviously deficient lending structure they had created at the Bank.” The FDIC bases its claims against the directors and officers on the individuals’ alleged “grossly negligent failure to exercise due care and any business judgment”; “grossly negligent failure to inform themselves about and to exercise adequate oversight over the Bank’s lending functions” and on the allegations that the defendants “knew or should have known” that the alleged problem loans identified in the complaint “were extremely unlikely to be paid back, and also the equally clear risks of injury to the Bank from the Bank’s inappropriate lending structure.”

 

The FDIC seeks to recover damages “in excess of $257 million” the bank allegedly incurred “as a result of the breaches of fiduciary duties and gross negligence” of the director and officer defendants in connection with 77 transactions identified in the complaint. The claims against the 17 spouses and conjugal partners who are also named as defendants “are based on their legal relationship to the Directors and Officers.”

 

The complaint also names as a defendant the insurer that issued two D&O liability insurance policies to the bank’s holding company. The two policies consist of a primary $25 million policy and a $10 million excess policy, both issued by the same insurer. Both policies are alleged to have had policy periods running from November 30, 2008 to December 30, 2009, with an optional extension period until December 30, 2010. The FDIC alleges in its complaint that the optional extension period was exercised on December 29, 2009. The complaint also alleges that on December 23, 2010, the FDIC sent a demand for civil damages to the directors and officers, with a copy of the demand also sent to the D&O insurer.

 

In Count III of the complaint, which is denominated as a “Claim for Direct Relief,” the FDIC alleges that its claims against the directors and officers “fall within the coverage provided” under its policies, and that the insurer is “liable” for “$35 million in damages caused to the Bank by the gross negligence of the Defendants.” The complaint seeks a judgment against the insurer “for at least $35 million.”

 

Discussion

In prior posts discussing the FDIC’s litigation against former director of failed banks, I have suggested that the real battleground for many of these suits may be the FDIC’s coverage disputes with the failed bank’s D&O insurer. This case, in which the FDIC named the D&O insurer as a defendant along with the former directors and officers, seems to make that aspect of these circumstances explicit.

 

This is not the first occasion on which the FDIC has directly named a failed bank’s D&O insurer as a defendant in a liability action. (For a prior example, refer here). Those readers uncertain how the FDIC is purporting to proceed directly against the insurer without first obtaining a judgment against the individual insureds may be interested to know that, at least according to sources I have reviewed online, Puerto Rico has a direct action statute, allowing those claiming injury from a torfeasor’s action to proceed directly against the tortfeasor’s liability insurer. At least based on my quick review of the subject, that would seem to explain the FDIC’s move of including the D&O insurer as a defendant in the suit.

 

Without being able to go behind the scenes it is hard to know for sure what the basis of the coverage action may be. Just based on the date on which the D&O policies originally incepted, it is not unlikely that the policies when issued included a regulatory exclusion. Some insurers have also taken the position that the insured vs. insured exclusion found in most D&O policies precludes coverage for claims brought by the FDIC as receiver, which is an issue that undoubtedly will be litigated heavily in connection with many of these failed bank coverage disputes.

 

It is also possible that the D&O insurer is asserting coverage defenses arising from the fact that the bank did not fail and the FDIC did not assert claims against the directors and officers until after the inception of the policies’ extensions. The insurer may be asserting defenses based on the timing of these various events relative to the policies termination dates and reporting deadlines. At least according to the FDIC’s recitation in the complaint, it appears that the FDIC did assert its claim against the directors and officers prior to the expiration of the extension.

 

The FDIC’s assertion of claims against the spouses and conjugal partners are obviously designed to allow the FDIC to be able to enforce any judgment against property jointly held by the individual directors and officers and their spouses. This is not the first occasion on which the FDIC has asserted claims against spouses of failed bank directors and officers. For example, in connection with the FDIC’s lawsuit against the certain former officers of Washington Mutual, the FDIC also asserted claims there against two of the officers’ spouses. The FDIC’s assertion of claims against the spouses is an illustration of the importance of the language found in many D&O policies which extends the definition of the term “Insured Persons” to include the spouses or domestic partners of the insured entity’s directors and officers, but only to the extent the spouses or partners is a party to a claim as a spouse to the director or officer.

 

One anomalous feature of the bank’s D&O insurance structure is that the both the bank’s primary D&O insurance policy and its excess D&O insurance policy were both  issued by the same D&O insurer. That is an unusual arrangement for many reasons, not the least of which is that many insurers would be reluctant to have such concentrated exposure to any one risk. The extent of the insurer’s exposure is one more reason I suspect that the insurer may considered its insurance of this risk as well defended, for example through the inclusion of a regulatory exclusion or even perhaps the preclusion of coverage for acts that incurred prior to the policies’ November 30, 2008 inception.

 

Of course, I could be wrong about the presence of these defensive features, but I still think it is unusual that the insurer would have take a full $35 million exposure to one financial institution, especially given the events that were taking place in the global financial marketplaces at that time.

 

The FDIC’s lawsuit against the former directors and officers of R-G Premier Bank of Puerto Rico is the nineteenth lawsuit the FDIC has filed in connection with the current wave of bank failures, and the second so far during 2012. The FDIC undoubtedly will be filing many more suits in the months ahead. Indeed, on the FDIC’s website page providing information about the agency’s litigation efforts, the FDIC states that as of January 18, 2012, the FDIC has authorized suits in connection with 44 failed institutions against 391 individuals for D&O liability with damage claims of at least $7.7 billion. This includes 19 filed D&O lawsuits (2 of which have been dismissed after settlement with the named directors and officers) naming 161 former directors and officers. In other words, even just looking at the suits authorized so far, there are many law suits yet to come. And the FDIC has been authorizing increased numbers of suits every month, so the likelihood is that many more lawsuits will be authorized and filed as we head forward in 2012 and beyond.

 

UPDATE: Following my initial publication of this post, a loyal reader provided me with a copy of the January 20, 2012 Amended and Restated Complaint in Intervention that the FDIC filed in the District of Puerto Rico in an action involving both the former directors and officers of the failed Westernbank and certain of their spouses, as well as the D&O insurers for Westernbank’s holding company. A copy of the FDIC’s complain can be found here.

 

Regulators closed Westernbank on April 30, 2010, which according to the FDIC’s complaint, cost the insurance fund $4.25 billion. In October 2011, certain of the former Westernbank directors and officers had sued the bank’s primary D&O insurer in state court in Puerto Rico. The FDIC as receiver for Westernbank moved ot intervene in the state court action, and on December 30, 2011, removed the state court action to the District of Puerto Rico. On January 20, 2012, the FDIC filed its amended complaint in intervention, in which it named as defendants certain additional directors and officers, as well as the excess D&O insurers in the bank’s D&O insurers program. The FDIC expressly asserts its claims against the D&O insurers under Puerto Rico’s direct action statute. Certain of the individual direcrors and officers have moved to remand the action back to state court.

 

The FDIC’s action against the former directors and officers of Westernbank represents the twentieth action that the agency has filed so far as part of the current wave of bank failures, and also represents yet another example of a case where the real battleground may be the D&O insurance coverage dispute.

 

The First Bank Closures of 2012:  This past Friday night, the FDIC also took control of the first three failed banks of 2012, as reflected here. The FDIC closed banks in Florida, Pennsylvania and Georgia, the first three banks to fail in over a month. The presence of a Georgia bank among the first group of bank failures is hardly a surprise, as the bank’s 74 bank failures during the period January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011 is by far the highest total for any state during the period. Florida, with 58 bank failures during that period, has the second highest total.

 

Is Morrison the "Global Securities Case of the Decade"?: In a very interesting and thorough January 20, 2012 article on the Am Law Litigation Daily (here), Michael Goldhaber asks the qustion whether or not the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank is the Global Securities Case of the Decade (so far, at least). Among other things, Goldhaber reviews the wide swath that Morrison has cut through cases pending in the district courts, noting that "perhaps no other precedent has ever cut down so many claims of such value so rapidly." The article details the effects that the Morrison opinion has had and is likely to continue to have.

 

Teaching Fellowship at UCLA Law School: Some readers of this blog may be very interested to know that the Lowell Milken Institute for Business Law and Policy at the UCLA Law School is now accepting applications for the Lowell Milken Institute Law Teaching Fellowship. The fellowship is a full-time, year-round, one or two-year academic year-position beginning in July 2012. The position involves teaching, research and writing, as well as other duties. Applicants must already hold a JD. The application deadline is March 1, 2012. Further information about the fellowship program can be found here.

 

Now for Something Different: For today’s musical interlude, and as a complete contrast to the North Korean Kindergarten Guitar Quintet whose oddly disturbing video I posted a few days ago, here is a video of a very different kind of guitar quintet, involving as it does one guitar and ten hands. I understand this video and the song are both very popular in certain circles. I suspect it would not catch on in North Korea. The song is “Somebody That I Used to Know” by the group Walk Off the Earth.