In a terse June 23, 2010 ruling (here), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s post-trial ruling that set aside the $277.5 million jury verdict in the Apollo Group securities class action lawsuit, and remanded the case for "entry of judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict."

 

Background

Apollo Group is the parent of the University of Phoenix (UOP), the largest for-profit provider of higher education in the United States. According to the plaintiff’s amended complaint (here), in 2003, two former UOP employees filed a False Claims Act action against UOP alleging that UOP received U.S. Department of Education funding in violation of laws specifying the way company educational recruiters may be compensated.

 

The Department of Education initiated an investigation of the issues raised in the False Claims Act action, and on February 5, 2004, a Department of Education employee issued a "Program Review Report" that accused UOP of violating the Department of Education rules with respect to education employees’ compensation. The plaintiff in the securities case alleges that the violations in the report could have resulted in the limitation or termination of Department of Education funding to UOP.

On September 7, 2004, Apollo agreed to pay the Department of Education $9.8 million to settle the program review. The settlement agreement (a copy of which can be found here) specified that Apollo’s entry into the agreement did not constitute an admission of wrongdoing or liability. News of the allegations in the Department of Education report first became public on September 14, 2004. The price of Apollo’s stock fell significantly on September 21, 2004, when a securities analyst issued a report expressing concern about the company’s possible exposure to future regulatory issues. Plaintiff shareholders subsequently initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the District of Arizona.

 

On January 16, 2008, a civil jury entered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff class on all counts, awarding damages of $277.5 million. Under the verdict, Apollo is responsible for 60 percent of the plaintiffs’ losses, former Apollo CEO Tony Nelson is responsible for 30 percent, and former CFO Kenda Gonzales is responsible for 10 percent. The jury verdict is discussed at greater length here.

 

As discussed in greater length here, on August 4, 2008, Judge James Teilborg of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona entered an order (here) granting the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, based on his finding that the trial testimony did not support the jury’s finding of loss causation. Judge Teilborg’s order vacated the judgment and entered judgment in defendants’ favor.

　

Judge Teilborg had held in connection with the parties’ pre-trial cross-motions for summary judgment that the issue whether the analyst reports constituted "corrective disclosure" sufficient to support a finding of loss causation was a question for the jury.

 

In its post-trial motion, Apollo argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a finding that the analyst reports represented "corrective disclosure," because they did not contain any new fraud-revealing information. Judge Teilborg found that "the evidence at trial undercut all bases on which [the plaintiff] claimed the (analyst) reports were corrective."

 

Accordingly, the court concluded that although the plaintiff "demonstrated that Apollo misled the markets in various ways concerning the DoE program review," the plaintiff "failed to prove that Apollo’s actions caused investors to suffer harm." The court therefore concluded that "Apollo is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

 

The Ninth Circuit’s Opinion

In its June 23, 2010 opinion, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the district court "erred in granting Apollo judgment as a matter of law." The opinion states that "the jury could have reasonably found that the (analyst) reports following various newspaper articles were ‘corrective disclosures’ providing additional or more authoritative fraud-related information that deflated the stock price."

 

The Ninth Circuit further held that Apollo is not entitled to a new trial and that there is no basis for remittitur (reduction of the verdict). The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case with "instructions that the district court enter judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict."

　

Discussion

Given the procedural development of this case so far, there may be no reason to assume that the June 23 ruling by the three-judge panel represents the case’s final stage. The defendants undoubtedly will seek rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, and given the stakes involved, the defendants may well seek Supreme Court review. However, the likelihood of the defendants obtaining rehearing or rehearing en banc, much less convincing the Supreme Court to take up the case, seems like a remote possibility. The defendants may continue to agitate, but they may be running out of options.

 

With the reinstatement of the plaintiffs’ verdict in this case, and the entry of the jury verdict in the plaintiffs’ favor in the Vivendi case, the securities class action jury trial scoreboard is looking more favorable to plaintiffs.

 

According to data included in the 2009 NERA year-end securities litigation study (about which refer here), and adjusted for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Apollo Group and for the verdict in Vivendi, the securities lawsuit jury verdict scoreboard shows as follow: since the enactment of the PSLRA, there have been 23 securities class action lawsuit that have gone to trial, of which 16 have gone all the way to verdict. Of those 16 cases, nine have resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs in whole or in part, and six have gone in favor of the defendants.

 

Data from Adam Savett of the Claims Compensation Bureau (here) show that there have now been nine cases filed post-PSLRA involving conduct occurring after the enactment of the PSLRA that have resulted in jury verdicts or bench decisions at trial. Of these nine, five have gone for the plaintiffs and four have gone for defendants.

 

Plaintiffs have to be heartened by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Apollo Group case. But notwithstanding this development, and for many reasons, trials in securities lawsuits still are likely to remain extremely rare.

 

A June 23, 2010 Bloomberg article by Thom Weidlich and Emily Heller about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion can be found here.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.

 

Self-Restraint:  I considered captoning this post "Apollo — "Oh No!" but thought better of it.

　

While many courts are showing a greater willingness to grant motions to dismiss in subprime-related securities class action lawsuits, some cases are surviving dismissal motions and others are settling for hundreds of millions of dollars, as a result of which the "watchword is uncertainty until a more consistent and predictable pattern emerges," according to a recent study.

 

In a June 2010 report entitled "Subprime Class Actions Revisited," Jonathan Eisenberg of the Skadden law firm examines 14 new subprime-related securities lawsuit rulings issued during the first five months of 2010. This report updates Eisenberg’s prior analysis of 16 dismissal motion rulings entered in 2009.

 

Eisenberg’s overall conclusions are that "courts are showing more evidence of subprime fatigue and a greater willingness to grant motions to dismiss even in cases that do not require proof of scienter," but while "recent trends have been more favorable for defendants, the results are by no means one-sided, and the final chapters of the subprime class action story have yet to be written."

 

Eisenberg notes that, by contrast to his earlier study, "more than half of the recent dismissals occurred in non-scienter Securities Act claims." Eisenberg also notes that courts continue to dismiss many of the Section 10(b) claims asserted in the subprime securities class action, "principally, but not exclusively, on the ground that the allegations of scienter are inadequate." Court has also found a number of the allegedly fraudulent statements immaterial as a matter of law.

　

With respect to the cases that have survived dismissal motions, the basis "overwhelmingly" are allegations related to "declining underwriting standards." In light of the numbers of cases that have survived the dismissal motions, as well as the significant dollar figures involved in some of the settlements, "while the story in the aggregate is positive for defendants, much risk remains in these cases." Overall, Eisenberg finds that he has "not found a single factor that explains the outcomes across all cases."

 

My running tally, listing (with links) dismissal motions rulings and settlements in all subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuits, can be accessed here. All of the decisions referenced in Eisenberg’s article are listed with links in my tally.

 

One interesting aspect of Eisenberg’s paper is with respect to his discussion of the difficulties plaintiffs face in trying to allege that defendants were "slow to recognize the enormity of the subprime crisis." He recites data from Bloomberg’s tally of subprime-related write downs showing that "less than three-tenths of one percent of the more than $1.75 trillion of global write-downs between 2007 and 2009 occurred prior to the third quarter of 2007." The rest occurred incrementally from the third quarter from the 2009.

 

Eisenberg suggests these data show that Judges "are and should be skeptical of the types of claims that could be made against virtually any financial institution that was late to recognize the damages ultimately inflicted by the subprim tsunami."

 

Special thanks to Jon Eisenberg for providing a copy of his article.

　

As opening speaker on June 21, 2010 at the Stanford Law School Directors’ college, Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff shared his views about Bank of America’s settlement of the SEC enforcement action, including some thoughts about why he approved the revised $150 million settlement of the case after he rejected the prior $33 proposed settlement. He also commented on what he hopes the significance of the sequence of events may be.

 

In August 2009, the SEC filed an enforcement action against Bank of America related to the events surrounding the company’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch. At the outset, the case related solely to omissions pertaining to the payment of bonuses at Merrill Lynch prior to the merger, although as later amended the action extended to omissions in the proxy materials relating to Merrill’s deteriorating financial condition after the merger was announced but prior to the shareholder vote.

 

In a harshly worded September 14, 2009 opinion (here), Judge Rakoff had rejected the parties initial $33 proposed settlement, finding that it did not meet the requisite standard for judicial approval, as it was "neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate." He challenged the very premise of the deal, which he said "proposes that shareholders who were the victims of the Bank’s alleged misconduct must now pay the penalty for the misconduct."

 

On February 4, 2010, the SEC announced a revised settlement of its amended enforcement action. Though the revised settlement substantially increased the cash value of the settlement, many observers at the time questioned whether the revised settlement addressed Rakoff’s numerous concerns with the initial pact. Yet Rakoff approved it, although "reluctantly."

 

In his speech at the Stanford Directors College, Judge Rakoff provided some explanation of the reasons he approved the revised deal. Among other things, he noted that the revised settlement included "specific prophylactic measures" regarding disclosures that had not been included in the initial proposal.

 

In addition, though the settlement funds would still ultimately come from Bank of America’s then-current shareholders, the funds under the revised settlement would go to Bank of America’s pre-merger shareholders, rather than to the SEC, as had been the arrangement under the initial settlement. Because about half of the post-merger shareholders had prior to the merger been Merrill Lynch shareholders, but only the pre-merger Bank of America shareholders would receive the settlement funds, the practical effect of the settlement was a "renegotiation" of the price of the merger deal.

 

Rakoff also mentioned that the day before the settlement was proposed, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo ("Hereinafter to be referred to as ‘The Candidate,’" Rakoff added) filed a state court action against Bank of America and two of its officers charging them with fraud (about which refer here). He said that "under the circumstances, he had no alternative but to examine" the material the AG had relied upon, as a result of which he concluded that the SEC’s "view of the facts was not unreasonable."

 

Rakoff added that he "really would have preferred that the case go to trial, as that would have provided an opportunity for a jury to determine what the facts were," but his role was not to determine his own preferences but rather to determine whether the proposed settlement was "fair, reasonable and adequate."

 

In commenting on what the significance of these events may be, Judge Rakoff noted that in the past SEC consent judgments have largely been free from "scrutiny" because of the generally "high regard" the judiciary has for the SEC and the "deference" the SEC is given as a result.

 

Judge Rakoff said he "harbors the hope" that the questions he raised about the Bank of America settlement may "encourage some of my colleagues in being more proactive in assessing other SEC consent judgments" as well as consent judgments in other cases. These kinds of efforts may or may not contribute to greater "efficiency" but they "will lead to greater justice."

 

In the opening keynote address on June 20, 2010 at the Stanford Directors’ College at Stanford Law School in Palo Alto, California, SEC Chair Mary Schapiro discussed the SEC’s "singular" mandate to address the needs of investors, noting the increasing challenges involved in "making sure the markets are fair and efficient."

 

Schapiro opened her speech discussing the ways that ways the agency is adopting its regulatory approach in light of rapidly changing technology. In particular, she addressed the events involved in and the consequences of the May 6, 2010 "flash crash" and the steps the agency is taking to "minimize chances it can ever happen again." Among other things, she steps the agency is taking to propose and implement "circuit breaker" rules to protect both the markets and investors from "clearly erroneous trades."

 

Schapiro also discussed the ways that technology has transformed trading activities, including for example the growth in ultra high speed trading activity. These developments and the increasing presence of dark pools trading, among other things, have led the agency to launch a series of initiatives, including new rules that would give the agency much faster and more complete access to information about trading activity.

 

Schapiro said that she appreciates the benefits and advantages that the various technological changes offer, particular those that "make markets more efficient, reduce costs, and increase liquidity." But, she added, "when these changes have the potential to destabilize markets without significantly contributing to key market functions, we believe they deserve a second look."

 

Schapiro then talked about the steps the agency has been taking as part of its mandate to protect the interests of "all investors, large and small." In later remarks during the Q&A, Schapiro underscored the importance to her and the agency of this aspect of the agency’s mission, noting that the SEC has to help investors, noting that "there is not another agency that works for the interests of investors."

 

Among other steps the agency is taking to try to advance its goals of helping investors is to reevaluate all existing corporate filing forms and disclosure requirements in order to consider what will be most meaningful to investors and what will "elicit better disclosure." She noted that these efforts may be slowed somewhat by the current financial reforms process and the likelihood of increased agency mandates will emerge from Congress, but the process to improve investor information will continue.

 

The final topic Schapiro addressed are the current reform initiatives, both within the agency and in Congress, with respect to corporate governance. She emphasized the SEC’s role is not to define what constitutes good governance, but rather to ensure that its requirements encourage "accountability and meaningful communication" about how the company is governed.

 

For example, the SEC’s role is not to mandate a particular board structure, but to ensure that investors know why a particular board structure was selected. She also emphasized that investors should have meaningful information about director candidates’ qualifications.

 

Among other specific governance issues Schapiro discussed were proxy disclosures and shareholder voting process issues. She enumerated a number of voting related issues that require further discussion, including, for example, the question whether proxy advisory firms should be subject to increasing SEC oversight and how to encourage retail investors voting participation.

 

Schapiro concluded by noting that while there agency faces many challenges, the "higher goal is a financial marketplace where investors invest capital in dynamic companies in a growing economy."

 

UPDATE: The text of Schapiro’s speech has now been posted online, here.

 

Speakers’ Corner: I am here at Stanford Law School for the conference as an interested member of the audience as well as member of the Directors’ College faculty. Tomorrow morning, I will be participating on a panel entitled "Personal Liability Risks, Indemnification and D&O Insurance." Joining me on the panel will be my good friends Priya Cherian Huskins of Woodruff Sawyer and Chris Warrior of Beazley. Though I have official responsibilities, I hope to be able to add post blog updates during the conference.

 

There was a time when it was relatively rare for the Supreme Court to take up securities cases. Until recently, the Court basically went several years between cases filed under the securities laws. Those days are clearly over, as the Court has granted cert petitions in several securities cases in recent years, including the Merck and National Australia Bank cases this term.

 

The Court has now granted cert in a securities suit for next term as well. On June 14, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in the Matrixx Initiative case.

 

The question presented is whether plaintiffs must allege that adverse event information is "statistically significant" in order to establish that the defendants’ alleged failure to disclose the information was material. Though the issues involved appear narrow, the case potentially could address broader issues of securities claim pleading sufficiency.

 

Background

Matrixx Initiatives manufactured an internasal cold remedy called Zicam. In April 2004, plaintiff shareholders filed a securities class action lawsuit against Matrixx and three of its directors and officers, alleging that the defendants were aware that numerous Zicam users experienced loss of the sense of smell. The complaint alleges that the defendants were aware of these problems because of calls to the company’s customer service line; because of academic research, which was communicated to the company; and because of product liability lawsuits that had been filed against the company.

 

The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint failed to adequately allege that the alleged omissions were material, because the complaint did not allege that the number of customer complaints was "statistically significant."

 

As discussed at greater length here, on October 28, 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that the district court "erred in relying on the statistical significance standard" in concluding that the complaint did not meet the materiality requirement. The Ninth Circuit said that a court "cannot determine as a matter of law whether such links [between Zicam and loss of smell] was statistically significant, because statistical significance is a matter of fact."

 

The Ninth Circuit said (citing Twombly and its progeny) that the appropriate test is whether the claim is "plausible on its face." The Ninth Circuit found that the complaint’s allegations of materiality were sufficient to "nudge" the plaintiffs’ claims from "conceivable to plausible."

 

On June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the defendants’ petition for writ of certiorari, on the question whether the plaintiff can state a securities claim "based on a pharmaceutical company’s nondisclosure of adverse event reports even though the reports are not alleged to be statistically significant."

 

Discussion

When the U.S. Supreme Court grants cert, there is always the question "why"? On the theory that the Court wouldn’t take the case if it thought the Ninth Circuit got it right, one view might be that the Court took the case simply to overturn the Ninth Circuit. However, as we say in connection with the Supreme Court’s consideration of the Merck case (about which refer here), this assumption is not always borne out by the Court’s actions.

 

Perhaps the more neutral explanation is that as a result of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, there is now a split in the circuits on the issue of the need to plead "statistical significance." Several other circuits (on which the district court relied in dismissing the Matrixx case) have held that plaintiff alleged that adverse events were "statistically significant," which the Ninth Circuit rejected that view and instead adapted a view that statistical significance cannot be resolved at the pleading stage and instead the court must consider facial plausibility.

 

Even if resolution of this narrow issue is all the Supreme Court accomplishes by taking up the Matrixx case, its review will still be significant. As the Morrison & Foerster law firm pointed out in its memo discussing the Supreme Court’s cert petition grant, companies regularly receive many customer complaints. These companies need to know when they have sufficient information about a product’s potential adverse effects that it must disclose that information.

 

Companies and defense attorneys would like a bright-line answer to this question, whereas, the MoFo memo suggests, plaintiffs "will push for an amorphous case-by-case determination."

 

There is a possibility that the Supreme Court’s consideration of this case could involve more than just this narrow issue, as important as it might be. Among other things, the 10b-5 Daily suggests that the Court could extend itself to a broader review of the issues of pleading materiality generally. Given what the Ninth Circuit said about what determinations are appropriate at the pleading stage, and what must be left to the trier of fact, this possibility seems substantial.

 

I also think it is critical to the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of the use of the "statistically significant" standard that its analysis was made in reliance on what it saw as required by the Twombly line of cases. Given the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that its holding was required by Twombly, it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court could address the Ninth Circuit’s analysis without discussing what is required by Twombly and the larger issues of pleading sufficiency at the motion to dismiss stage.

 

There is the further possibility that the Supreme Court could range further and address other aspects of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, including even perhaps the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that the plaintiff had adequately alleged scienter.

 

The Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that the scienter allegations were sufficient was based on plaintiffs allegations that the "high level executives …would know the company was being sued in a product liability action," and also based on the fact that the various academic research results and customer complaints were communicated to the company’s director of research – though there were no allegations that the other two individual defendants were aware of this information.

 

The Ninth Circuit put a great deal of emphasis on what the defendants’ "would have known" as higher level executives, without necessarily considering whether the plaintiffs had alleged that the defendants did know the supposedly omitted information.

 

This aspect of the case raises the question whether scienter may be sufficiently alleged based on an individual officers’ officer or position, even without supporting allegations about whether the defendants knew or what information they were provided access to.

 

Of course, there is no way of knowing whether the Supreme Court will reach these issues, or whether it will narrowly address the immediate questions presented. That is always one of the great uncertainties (and interesting possibilities) when the Court grants cert, you never know where the case might go. The broader possibilities here, while present, may also be conjectural best.

　

In any event, the next Supreme Court term will involve yet another consideration at the highest judicial level of questions involving securities lawsuit pleading questions. Perhaps this will be one of the first cases to be considered by Justice Kagan (assuming for the sake of argument that she does indeed join Justice Sotomayor and the other seven justices on the Supreme Court bench next term.

 

Readers may be interested to know that on June 16, 2009, the FDA warned consumers (here) to stop using three Zicam intranasal products because the products may cause a loss of smell. As reflected here, a second securities class action lawsuit was filed after the company’s share price plunged following this announcement.

　

Why Do They Call Them Wells Notices?:  If like me you have always wondered why a Wells Notice is called a Wells Notice, you will want to take a look at the recent post from the Compliance Building blog. Turns out there was, as we all suspected, someone named Wells – in fact, John W. Wells, an attorney who, in 1972 was appointed to chair a committee that made a number of recommendations, including the process now referred to as a Wells notice. Now we know.

My personal thanks to Doug Cornelius, the blog’s author, for answering a question I have always kind of wondered about.

The SEC has made it clear that it intends to use Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to "clawback" compensation from CEOs and CFOs of companies that restate their financial statements, even if the individuals are not alleged to have engaged in any wrongdoing. A recent district court opinion confirms that the statute gives the SEC the authority to proceed on that basis. These actions raise complex D&O insurance coverage concerns that arguably suggest certain necessary policy adjustments.

 

Section 304 provides that if a company restates its financials, the company’s CEO and CFO, who certified the financial statements under Sox Section 302, "shall reimburse" the company for any bonus compensation received during the 12 months following the restated period, as well as any stock sale profits earned during those twelve months.

 

There is no requirement in Section 304 that the CEO or CFO from whom reimbursement is sought have any involvement in the events that necessitated the restatement; indeed, the statute doesn’t require any showing of wrongdoing or fault.

 

The SEC’s first use of this statutory provision to clawback compensation from a corporate official against whom no wrongdoing is alleged was the enforcement action filed in July 2009 against Maynard Jenkins, the former CEO of CSK Auto. I first wrote about this enforcement action in a prior post, here.

 

CSK Auto had restated its financial statements for the fiscal years 2002 to 2004. The SEC filed separate enforcement actions against the company and four company officials for securities law violations in connection with the restatements. However, Jenkins is not among the company officials alleged to have violated the securities laws.

 

The SEC’s action, filed in reliance on Section 304, seeks to compel Jenkins to reimburse CSK Auto for more than $4 million he received in bonuses and stock sale profits "while CSK was committing accounting fraud." Jackson not only is not alleged to have had any role in or awareness of the alleged scheme, but the SEC has actually alleged in its separate enforcement action against the other CSK officials that the others concealed their scheme from Jenkins.

 

Jenkins moved to dismiss the SEC’s clawback action on numerous grounds, arguing that he cannot properly be forced to disgorge compensation in the absence of any personal wrongdoing.

 

In a June 9, 2009 order (here), District of Arizona Judge G. Murray Snow held that the SEC’s complaint against Jenkins alleges facts sufficient to state a claim under Section 304, stating further that "the text and structure of Section 304 require only the misconduct of the issuer, but do not necessarily require the specific misconduct of the issuer’s CEO or CFO."

 

Judge Snow elaborated by saying that "the misconduct of the issuer is the misconduct that triggers the reimbursement obligation of the CEO and the CFO." Before reimbursement can be required "the issuer’s misconduct must be sufficiently serious to result on material noncompliance with a financial reporting requirement."

 

The SEC has already made it clear that it intends to use Section 304 to try to clawback compensation from other CEOs and CFOs who are not alleged to have done anything wrong. For example, just a few days ago, the SEC settled a Section 304 filed against Walden O’Dell, the former CEO of Diebold, even though, as noted in the SEC’s June 2, 2010 litigation release, the SEC’s complaint does not allege that O’Dell engaged in the alleged fraud at Diebold.

 

Judge Snow’s opinion in the Jenkins case confirms that the SEC may properly pursue Section 304 clawbacks even against corporate officials who are not alleged to have engaged in personal wrongdoing (although he did leave open the question whether the statute could be used in ways that would be unconstitutionally punitive).

 

Though statutorily authorized, the statute’s use to effect a forfeiture without culpability or fault raises troubling questions, including even basic questions of fairness. On the other hand, it might also fairly be asked whether the CEO or CFO ought to be able to retain benefits accumulated at a time when the investing public was being misled, by financial statements that the CEO and CFO certified, about the company’s financial condition.

 

Beyond these issues, these kinds of actions may also raise complex D&O insurance coverage questions.

 

A Section 304 claim potentially would raise at least two possible coverage concerns – first, whether the claim involves an allegation of a "wrongful act" as required to trigger coverage; and second, whether coverage for the claim is precluded by the "profit or advantage" exclusion.

 

D&O insurance typically is only triggered by a claim made against an insured person for an actual or alleged wrongful act. Under a Section 304 claim in which no personal wrongdoing is alleged, the question would arise whether a wrongful act has been sufficiently alleged to trigger coverage under the policy.

 

I think it could fairly be argues that a Section 304 claim does involve a wrongful act even if no personal wrongdoing is alleged against the individual defendant. As Judge Snow’s opinion in the Jackson case emphasized, a prerequisite to a Section 304 claim is misconduct by the issuer (which is an "insured" under the typical public company D&O insurance policy’s "entity coverage" provision).

 

Given the statutory prerequisite of issuer wrongdoing, a Section 304 claim necessarily involves a claim for a wrongful act, even if the wrongful act alleged is not that of the targeted individual. The typical D&O policy emphatically does not say that the claim must be made against an insured person for that insured person’s own wrongful act – to the contrary, the typical policy requires only that the claim be made for "an actual or alleged wrongful act," without specifying whose act it must be.

 

Nevertheless, I can still imagine a carrier bent upon denying coverage urging that this policy provision requires a wrongful act by the insured person against whom the claim has been made, which may indicate the need for certain policy revisions, as detailed below.

 

Even if the wrongful act concern can be overcome, there is still the policy exclusion to be dealt with. The typical D&O policy excludes coverage for any loss based on a claim for any "profit or advantage" to which the insured is not legally entitled. A carrier might attempt to rely on this provision not only to deny coverage for the amount of any reimbursed compensation, but also to try to deny coverage for the costs of defending the claim.

 

One way to try to circumvent this concern about Section 304 defense costs is to amend the exclusionary provision to required a judicial determination in the underlying claim that the insured was not legally entitled to the "profit or advantage," which would at least allow defense costs to be advanced up until there has been such a judicial determination. The limitation of this approach is that once there has been a judicial determination, the carrier might seek to be reimbursed for the advanced defense costs.

 

The point here is that the question of D&O insurance coverage for the costs of defending a Section 304 clawback claim could be problematic. One approach to try to address these concerns would be to amend the policy to provide that the "profit or advantage" exclusion will not be applied to the costs of defending a Section 304 act, and to further amend the policy to provide that the carrier will not take the position that a Section 304 action does not allege a wrongful act.

 

At least one insurer has taken an alternative approach to address the Section 304 defense cost issue in its revised policy form. Under this approach, the costs of defending a Section 304 claim are expressly included in the policy’s definition of Loss.

 

It is not my intention here to debate the merits of these alternative approaches (which indeed may not be mutually exclusive) or of any other alternative approaches that might exist. My purpose here is simply to point out that this issue has reached the point where the question of Section 304 defense expenses ought to be addressed in the D&O policy form.

 

Just as a few years ago, the D&O insurance industry quickly adapted express policy language designed to address concerns arising from SOX whistleblower claims, it may now be time for the industry to adapt express policy provisions addressing Section 304 defense costs. Policyholders should not have to wait until the claim has been filed to find out what the carrier’s position will be on Section 304 defense expenses.

　　

2010 World Cup: Some Early Notes:

1. Vuvuzela: Did the site selection committee know about those damned vuvuzela horns when they chose South Africa as the 2010 World Cup venue? What an awful, idiotic noise. (There are reports that the event organizing committee is considering a ban.)

 

2. Remember, The Beautiful Game is Fast, Too: England was up on the U.S. by a goal before I even had a chance to turn the T.V. on.

 

3. U.S. Goal Inspires Headline Writers Everywhere: Here’s my entry – "English Green’s Gift Gaffe Gives Yanks a Goal."

 

4. Most Underappreciated: Tim Howard ought to be one of the most celebrated athletes in the U.S. He certainly is one of the most talented.

 

5. Go Figure: The official nickname of the Australian team is the "Socceroos." Discuss.

 

6. Self-Destruction (and Team Takeout, Too): Substitute Algerian striker Abdelkader Ghezzal entered his team’s game against Slovenia in the 58th minute (which was a scoreless tie at the time). Approximately five seconds later he was given a yellow card for an aggressive tackle. Then in 74th minute, he earned his second yellow (and an automatic red card, requiring his ejection from the game) for a flagrant hand ball . Within minutes, his shorthanded team conceded Slovenia’s winning goal.

 

7. Divided By a Common Language: The "pitch" is the playing field. A "side" is a team. A "strike" is a shot. To "win a cap" is to be selected to play for your country’s team. "Nil" means zero. "Draw" means tie. And "nil-nil draw" (usually preceded by the word "dreaded") means a scoreless tie. The phrase "argy bargy" is not susceptible to translation. 

　

In two different subprime securities suits, courts recently entered ruling with respect to dismissal motions going in opposite directions. In one case, the Second Circuit, in the second appellate ruling so far in connection with the subprime-related litigation wave, affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. In the other case, the district denied defendants’ motions to dismiss. Each may be significant in their own way.

 

The Centerline Holding Case

In a brief, five-page summary opinion issued on June 9, 2010 (here), the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the subprime-related securities class action lawsuit that had been filed against Centerline Holding Company and certain of its directors and officers.

 

As discussed here, on January Southern District of New York Judge Schira Scheindlin had dismissed the case without prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged that the defendants had had acted with scienter. In a August 4, 2009 order, Judge Scheindlin granted the defendants’ renewed motions to dismiss.

 

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that they had sufficiently alleged the defendants had made material misrepresentations and omissions about the company’s plan to change its business model form one focused on the generation of distributable tax-exempt income to that of an asset manager focused on growth.

 

The Second Circuit affirmed the Judge Scheindlin’s dismissal, noting that "the effort in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint to characterize the Defendants’ class period statements as speaking to the company’s future plans – and this as misleading in light of Defendants’ undisclosed plans for Centerline – fails when the statements are reviewed in their entirety." These statements, the court found, "were not rendered misleading by the Defendants’ omissions."

 

Because the Defendants had not duty to disclose their plans, Plaintiffs’ had not adequately alleged conscious misbehavior or recklessness and "otherwise failed sufficiently to allege scienter."

 

The CIT Group Case

In a June 10, 2010 opinion (here), Judge Barbara Jones denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the subprime-related securities suit that had been filed against CIT Group and certain of its directors and officers.

 

As detailed here, the plaintiffs alleged that CIT’s public financial statements failed to account for tens of millions of dollars in loans to Silver State Helicopter, which were highly unlikely to be repaid and should have been written off. The plaintiffs also alleged that the company had misrepresented the performance of its subprime home lending and student loan portfolios.

 

Citing at length the recent dismissal motion denial in the Ambac case, Judge Jones concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately pled misrepresentation with respect the company’s deteriorating lending standards, which allegedly conflicted with the company’s public statements. She also concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged actionable misstatements with respect to performance of CIT’s student loan portfolio.

 

Judge Jones also concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged scienter. She found that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the defendants "knew about CIT’s lowered lending standards and in some cases affirmatively approve them – while publicly touting the company’s ‘conservative’ and ‘disciplined’ approach." She further noted, in connection with the conclusion that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged scienter, that the complaints adequately alleged that the defendants "learned of the deterioration of CIT’s home loan and student loan portfolios, which making public statements indicating that CIT was outperforming the market and would suffer only minimal losses."

 

Finally Judge Jones found that the ’33 Act plaintiffs’ claims met the pleading requirements to state a claim under Section 11.

 

Discussion

The Second Circuit’s affirmance of the Centerline Holding dismissal represents the second appellate court decision issued in connection with the subprime litigation wave. The first appellate decisions was the Eight Circuit’s September 1, 2009 opinion in the NovaStar Financial case, about which refer here. In NovaStar, the Eighth Circuit also affirmed the lower court’s dismissal.

 

Though coming later than the NovaStar ruling, the Centerline case could perhaps be more noteworthy, simply because such a large percentage of the subprime related cases have been filed in the Southern District of New York (which is located in the Second Circuit).

 

However, because the Second Circuit’s opinion was issued in the form of a summary order, its impact may be limited. By their own terms, summary orders, though they may be cited, "do not have precedential value" according applicable rules of the Second Circuit. Moreover the analysis in the Second Circuit’s opinion is quite limited.

 

Whatever the opinions impact may be on other cases, its greatest significance may have to do with simple scorekeeping – as in, two subprime related securities class action lawsuit appeals, two dismissal affirmances.

 

At the same time however, as the CIT case demonstrates, there are still cases in which the motions to dismiss are being denied. Among the more interesting things to me about the CIT ruling is the court’s reliance on the prior dismissal motion ruling in the Ambac case. I had speculated at the time of that the breadth of the language in the Ambac decision could make the court’s ruling influential. As the CIT decision confirms, the Ambac decision has proven to be influential.

 

I have in any event added these rulings to my running tally of the subprime-related securities class action lawsuit dismissal motion rulings. The tally can be accessed here.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing me with a copy of the CIT opinion.

　

The unexpected resignation of an outside director may indicate that a company is about to experience tough times, according to a recent academic study. The research shows that a company experiencing a surprise director departure is likelier to face a number of different future adverse events.

 

Among other things, a company with a surprise outside director departure has a "significantly higher likelihood of being named in a federal class action securities fraud lawsuit." The study’s authors call this risk of future adverse events following a director’s departure the "dark side of outside directors."

 

These findings are set forth in a March 2010 paper entitled "The Dark Side of Outside Directors: Do They Quit When They Are Needed Most?" (here) by Rüdiger Fahlenbrach of the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Angie Low of the Nanyang Technological University and René M. Stultz of Ohio State University. Hat tip to the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Reform for the link to the paper. I note here that the author’s paper is copyrighted – a notation that the authors require from anyone quoting their paper.

 

The Authors’ Analysis

The authors note that among the remedial measures imposed following the era of corporate scandals last decade were requirements for increased numbers of independent directors on corporate boards. Though these measures had salutary purposes, the addition of increased numbers of independent directors also has "costs" as well as benefits.

 

Among these "costs" is what the authors refer to as "a dark side" of increased outside director involvement arising because of outside directors’ "incentives." That is, outside directors have "incentives to leave when they anticipate that the firm on whose board they sit will perform poorly and/or disclose adverse information."
 

 

The directors have incentives to quit "to protect their reputation or to avoid increases in the workload when the firm on which board they sit is likely to experience a tough time." As the authors put it, outside directors are "more likely to quit when they expect the firm to perform poorly or to disclose bad news, so they can at least partly and possibly totally escape the reputation loss."

 

Because outside directors have these incentives, an unexpected director resignation from a company’s board may indicate that the company may be poised for future adverse events.

 

The authors tested this hypothesis by examining "surprise director departures." The authors tracked resignations by directors whose ages were below the average director retirement age and then plotted the resignations against future events at the companies from whose boards the directors had resigned.

 

The authors found that following "surprise director departures" the firms involved experienced "significantly worse stock and accounting performance," and "are significantly more likely to suffer from an extreme negative return event, are significantly more likely to restate earnings, and have a significantly higher likelihood of being named in a federal class action securities lawsuit."
 

 

These results, the authors concluded, are "consistent with the directors leaving in anticipation of adverse events to protect their reputation or to avoid an increased workload."

 

Discussion

The authors’ analysis of the "dark side" of increased outside director involvement is interesting, because it suggests that the outside directors readiness to head for the exits when the going gets tough undermines the very reasons for which increased outside director involvement was required in the first place. As the authors put it, their analysis suggests that "outside directors are more likely to resign precisely when experienced outside directors are needed the most."

 

The authors’ findings about the increased risk of securities litigation following a director’s resignation are particularly interesting. Back when I was part of a D&O underwriting facility, my colleagues and I were constantly involved in trying to identify factors that were positively correlated with the risk of securities litigation. The authors’ analysis suggests that a surprise outside director departure is such a factor.

 

Specifically, the authors found that a surprise outside director departure (that is, one that is not explained by the director having reached the average age for director retirement) is "highly statistically and economically significant" in terms of litigation risk. The authors specifically found that the surprise departure of an outside director increases the probability of a securities class action lawsuit filing by 31% to 35%, with the likelihood increasing as firm size increases; if a company’s stock and accounting performance were poor in the prior year’ and if the firm raised relatively more external financing in the prior year.

 

The authors’ work raises important questions about the role of outside directors. However, for D&O underwriters, the authors’ analysis about the correlation between surprise director resignations and securities litigation risk may be the most interesting finding. At a minimum, the authors’ analysis suggests a potentially important new underwriting criterion.

 

Questioning Rating Agencies’ First Amendment Defenses: In a recent post, I discussed the latest decision questioning the applicability of rating agencies’ first amendment defenses. Left unanalyzed in these cases is the larger question of why rating agencies’ ratings opinions are thought to be entitled to first amendment protection in the first place.

 

In a June 9, 2010 Am Law Litigation Daily article (here), Susan Beck questions both the rating agencies’ entitlement to rely on the First Amendment and the limitations of the judicial decisions to date where courts have found the First Amendment defense inapplicable because the ratings were given only to a small group of sophisticated investors. Beck asks, with respect to the latter point, "Why should big, sophisticated investors like CalPERS have more redress under the law than small (and large) investors who buy securities in public offerings?"

 

Beck also suggests that "the premise of First Amendment protection for credit ratings is shaky." After reviewing and questioning the case authority on which the rating agencies rely in asserting their First Amendment defenses, Beck concludes "I’m hoping that the next judge to address the First Amendment question reads the case law differently and concludes that a credit rating, by itself, is not a matter of public concern that deserves Constitutional protection. That’s not only fair, it’s right."

 

The FDIC in its status as receiver of a failed bank may not avoid rescission of a fidelity bond procured by material misrepresentation, notwithstanding the FDIC’s statutory receiver rights, according to a June 7, 2010 Second Circuit decision. This decision represents an important interpretation of the FDIC’s statutory rights as receiver, and could prove to be an important precedent in future insurance-related litigation arising out to the current round of failed banks. The Second Circuit’s June 7 opinion can be found here.

 

Background

In 1999, Connecticut Bank of Commerce (CBC) entered an agreement to acquire MTB Bank. The transaction closed March 30, 2000. Prior to the deal’s closing, two things happened of relevance to the subsequent insurance dispute.

 

First, MTB discovered that its agents had advanced $950,000 based on fraudulent invoices in connection a business deal involving Harmony Designs. MTB noticed its fidelity bond carrier regarding the Harmony Designs matter, although MTB ultimately reduced its loss below the amount of the deductible.

 

Second, in March 2000, before the CBC deal closed, MTB’s president and other officers were indicted in an alleged conspiracy involving the imposition of Argentinean minerals. MTB also noticed its fidelity bond insurer regarding the indictments.

 

After the CBC deal closed, CBC was added to MTB’s fidelity bond. As the bond’s June 30, 2000 expiration approached, CBC sought to renew it. The insurer declined to renew unless CBC came to London to provide additional information in connection with the renewal. The insurer also refused to extend the bond period 30 days.

 

CBC declined to visit London as the fidelity bond insurer had requested. Instead, CBC obtained replacement fidelity bond coverage from a different insurer. In order to secure this replacement coverage, CBC completed and submitted a policy application that required CBC, among other things, to disclose losses sustained during the preceding three years; whether there were additional circumstances relevant to the application; and whether insurance had been declined or canceled during the past three years. Post-binding, CBC completed the replacement insurer’s separate application form, which also asked questions related to past losses and whether CBC had had insurance declined or canceled.

 

CBC answered "None" or "No" to these application questions. CBC did not disclose or identify the Harmony Designs loss, the indictments, or the predecessor insurer’s actions in connection with the fidelity bond insurance renewal application.

 

CBC went into receivership in June 2002. In 2006, the FDIC as receiver sued CBC’s fidelity bond insurer alleging breach of contract for dishonoring claims under the bond for CBC’s losses related to a loan scheme used to fund MTB’s acquisition.

 

The district court granted the fidelity bond insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that it properly rescinded the bond based on CBC’s application misrepresentations and omissions. The FDIC appealed.

 

The June 7, 2010 Opinion

In a June 7, 2010 opinion by Southern District of New York Judge John Keenan (sitting by designation on the Second Circuit), the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of summary judgment on behalf of the fidelity bond insurer.

 

In seeking to overturn the district court’s opinion, the FDIC had sought to rely on its rights under 12 U.S.C. Section 1823(e), which protects the FDIC from defenses not apparent on the face of an asset it acquires as a receiver of a failed bank. The FDIC argued that this provision bars the fidelity bond insurer’s misrepresentation defense.

 

The Second Circuit held (contrary to a prior holding in the Sixth Circuit) that a fidelity bond is in fact an "asset" to which this provision applies. However, the Second Circuit rejected the FDIC’s argument that this provision bars the fidelity bond insurer’s policy defenses.

 

The Second Circuit said that the provision is intended to "bar ‘secret’ defenses which would diminish the FDIC’s interests in a failed bank’s assets," but that "defenses raised by the bond itself may prevent recovery by the FDIC."

 

The Second Circuit found that "as the grounds for rescission were plainly stated on the face of the bond, there is nothing secret about [the fidelity bond insurer’s] misrepresentation defense." To recognize the FDIC’s position, the Second Circuit said, would be to "strike the rescission clause from the bond."

 

In the final portion of its opinion, the Second Circuit went on to hold that each of the three alleged misrepresentations separately provided sufficient ground to support rescission. The Second Circuit found that the omission of the information about the Harmony Designs loss, about the indictments, and about the prior insurer’s refusal to renew or extend each separately representing sufficient grounds for rescission.

 

The Second Circuit’s holdings about the sufficiency of the fidelity bond insurer’s basis for rescission are quite broad. Among other things, the Second Circuit said that "information about previous losses is presumptively material," and "the determination of risk is one properly left to the insurer, not the insured, and the insurer cannot make an accurate risk assessment without full disclosure from the applicant."

 

Discussion

It seems probable that in connection with the current wave of bank failures that the FDIC as receiver to the failed banks will attempt to recover under the failed banks’ insurance policies. The Second Circuit’s holding in the CBC case underscores the fact that notwithstanding the FDIC’s receivership status, and the statutory rights that status may entail, the FDIC’s ability to enforce the failed bank’s insurance coverage is subject to the defenses the insurer may have that appear in the relevant policies.

 

To that extent, at least, the Second Circuit’s opinion could be relevant to may arise in the wake of the FDIC’s attempt as receiver to recover under the failed banks’ insurance policies.

 

The CBC opinion is relevant for another reason that arguably is completely independent of the FDIC’s involvement in this dispute. That is, the opinion starkly demonstrates the critical importance of the policy application process and the extent of the insurer’s rights, under certain circumstances, to seek rescission. The Second Circuit’s view of the applicant’s obligation to provide responsive information is broad and encompassing.

 

The Second Circuit’s rescission holding seems to reflect a perception that CBC knew that if it disclosed the prior losses it would be unable to secure replacement fidelity bond coverage. To that extent, the rescission holding may reflect the somewhat distinct circumstances of the case. However, the Second Circuit’s rhetoric is broad and is not delimited to the referenced circumstances. The breadth of the ruling rescission ruling could well prove helpful to insurers in other rescission cases, even those lacking the distinctive characteristics of this case.

 

Financial Reform Impact on the Insurance Industry: In a prior post (here), I noted that the Senate’s version of the financial reform bill includes a number of specific reforms that particularly impact the insurance industry.

 

In a June 7, 2010 memo entitled "The Impact on the Insurance Industry of the Financial Regulatory Reform Bills: A Legislative Update" (here), the Simpson Thacher law firm examines and compares the various insurance industry reforms proposed in the House and Senate versions of the reform legislation.

 

The memo details the numerous insurance industry measures that are substantially similar in the two bills, suggesting that the provisions are likely to survive the current conference process. Among other things, the provisions intended to streamline the regulation of reinsurance and nonadmitted insurance are "substantially identical in both bills, and are therefore likely be enacted into law, as are a number of other measures.

 

Just as the financial crisis itself has gone through various phases, the resulting litigation has also changed and evolved. A June 4, 2010 report entitled "Credit Crisis Litigation Revisited: Litigating the Alphabet Soup of Structured Products" by my friend Faten Sabry, and her colleagues Anmol Sinha, Jesse Mark and Sungi Lee, all of NERA Economic Consulting, takes a detailed look at the credit crisis-related litigation wave, with a particular emphasis on the way that it has developed over time.

 

The focus of the NERA report is credit crisis-related "securities cases," which includes not only state and federal securities class action lawsuits, but also "ERISA claims, shareholder derivative actions, individual state and federal cases, [and] international cases." Thus, the universe of cases that NERA is tracking is considerably broader than the ones I have included in my running tally of subprime and credit crisis-related litigation, which can be accessed here.

 

The Report’s overall conclusion is that "there are conflicting signals about the future of this litigation." On the one hand, new credit crisis-related lawsuit filings have declined and almost half of the preliminary motion decisions to date have been dismissals. On the other hand, "types of allegations, products and defendants have continued to shift, and recent regulatory activity," such as the recent enforcement action against Goldman Sachs, "add to the uncertainty surrounding the direction and focus of the litigation."

 

According to NERA’s tally, there have been a total of 424 of the broad category of credit crisis cases filed since the beginning of 2007, 225 of which are securities class action lawsuits. The most active quarter both for credit crisis cases generally and for securities class action lawsuits specifically was the second quarter of 2008, when there were 48 new cases overall and 38 new securities class action lawsuits. Both overall credit crisis lawsuit filings and securities class action lawsuit filings declined every quarter during 2009.

 

The NERA report observes that there has "been a noticeable shift in the type of defendants as the credit crisis has progressed." Among other things, the incidence of cases involving corporate directors and officers has changed over time. The percentage of credit crisis filings that name directors and officers as defendants decreased between 2007 and 2009. In 2007 70% of the cases included director and officer defendants. The percentage of cases with director and officer defendants declined to 61% in 2008 and 52% in 2009. Early 2010 filings show a slightly increased percentage, with 67% of cases including director and officer defendants.

 

The types of companies involved in the cases have also shifted over time. For example, in 2007, mortgage lenders, home builders and REITs were named as defendants in 47% of filings, but by 2008, the kinds of companies were involved in only 20% of filings. Only 5% of the 2009 filings involved these kinds of companies, and so far none of the 2010 has involved these companies. With this shift away from residential mortgage defendants, the plaintiffs have changed, too, as the claimants have "shifted toward non-primary mortgage market participants."

 

While the percentage of filings against mortgage lenders, home builders, and REITs has declined over time, the percentage of cases naming securities issuers and underwriters has increased, from only 24% and 23% of filings in 2007 and 2008, to 37% of filings in 2009, and 60% so far in 2010.

 

The types of financial products involved in the credit crisis lawsuits have also shifted over time. Because the 2007 lawsuits largely involved lenders, mortgage originators and homebuilders, many of the 2007 suits involve mortgage loans – about 40% of the 2007 cases involved allegations relating to mortgage loans. By contrast only about 7% of 2010 cases involve mortgage loans, but "products such as ABS/MBS, CDOs and CDSs now make up the majority of the recent securities credit crisis lawsuits."

 

Slightly more than a third of the cases overall have either had dismissal motion rulings or been settled. I was a little puzzled by NERA statistics on case dismissals, as their data show that 61% of cases have been dismissed, with or without prejudice, which is considerably higher than my own figures reflect. (Refer here to access my own tallies of subprime and credit lawsuit dismissal motion rulings.)

 

However, NERA’s dismissal figures also include a number of voluntary dismissals. Removing those from the equation reduces the percentage of dismissal grants to 46%. In addition, NERA puts settled cases in a separate category and are counted neither as a dismissal motion denials or grants. Many of the case settlements followed dismissal motion denials, and so NERA’s figures on dismissal motion denials do not reflect those cases. All of these considerations should be taken into account when referring to the NERA data for purposes of determining how parties are faring in disputed dismissal motions.

 

Aggregate settlements to date in these cases total over $2.1 billion, with roughly $1.7 billion in settlements associated with securities class action lawsuit settlements. (My detailed list of subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuit settlements can be accessed here.)

 

Though the settlement numbers so far are impressive, there are clearly many more settlements yet to come, and the aggregate settlement figures are likely to grow. As the NERA report comments in closing, "settlements and judgments will be the next chapter in this story."

 

The NERA report contains a great deal of interesting and useful information and it is worth reading at length and in full. Very special thanks to Dr. Sabry for providing me with a copy of the report.

 

NERA also recently released a separate report entitled "Subprime and Synthetic CDOs: Structure, Risk and Valuation" which intended to provide a "plain English" explanation of many of the complex financial instruments that were involved with the financial crisis. This June 3, 2010 report can be accessed here.

 

My own recent status update on the subprime and credit crisis related litigation can be found here.