Rating agencies are not susceptible to ’33 Act liability as "underwriters," even if they helped structure the mortgage backed securities at issue, according to February 1, 2010 ruling (here) by Southern District of New York Judge Lewis Kaplan in which he dismissed Moody’s and McGraw-Hill (S&P’s parent) from the Lehman Brothers Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation.

 

Plaintiffs had purchased the mortgage back securities that Lehman Brothers had issued in two offerings in August 2005 and August 2006. The plaintiffs allege that the originators of the loans that backed the securities failed to comply with the general loan underwriting guidelines described in the offering documents. The plaintiffs allege that the rating agencies determined the composition of the loans in the mortgage pool that the instruments securitized. The plaintiffs also allege that the credit enhancements supporting the loans were insufficient to support the investment ratings the rating agencies gave the securities.

 

The plaintiffs premised their securities liability claims against the rating agencies based on their argument that the rating agencies were "underwriters" within the meaning of Section 11 of the ’33 Act. The plaintiffs based their theory that the rating agencies were "underwriters" within the meaning of Section 11 on the argument that the "underwriter" liability extends to those "who engaged in steps necessary for the distribution."
 

 

Judge Kaplan found this argument "unpersuasive," noting that

 

The Rating Agencies’ alleged activities may well have had a good deal to do with the composition and characteristics of the pools of mortgage loans and the credit enhancements of the Certificates that ultimately were sold. But there is nothing in the complaint to suggest that they participated in the relevant "undertaking" – that of purchasing the securities here at issue, the Certificates – "from the issuer with a view to their resale." The Section 11 claim is insufficient in law.

 

Judge Kaplan also rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the rating agencies had "seller" liability under Section 12(a)(2) or control person liability under Section 15.

 

The rating agencies dismissal from this subprime-related securities class action lawsuit is not as significant as it would have been if it had based on the rating agencies’ claims that their ratings opinions are proteced by the First Amendment. Though Judge Scheindlin rejected that argument on narrow grounds in the Cheyne Financial case (refer here), the First Amendment defense undoubtedly will play a crucial role in many of the subprime-related securities cases that have been filed against the rating agencies, and the litigants in the many cases that have been filed against the rating agencies will have to await a later date to get a clearer sense of how those arguments will fare in these cases.

 

But though Judge Kaplan did not reach the first amendment issue, his ruling nevertheless is significant. As the subprime litigation wave unfolded, there were a number of complaints filed against the rating agencies asserting ’33 Act claims against them in which the plaintiffs in those cases had argued that the rating agencies were susceptible to "underwriter" liability under Section 11. Judge Kaplan’s rejection of that theory undoubtedly will be influential in those other cases where the plaintiffs have attempted to assert Section 11 "underwriter" liability against the rating agencies.

 

I have in any event added Judge Kaplan’s ruling to my list of subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuit resolutions, which can be accessed here.

 

SEC Issues Climate Change Interpretive Guidance: The SEC decided recently to issue interpretive guidance on climate change disclosure. The SEC has now issued the interpretive guidance, which can be found here. I think this is a significant development, and not just because the SEC has now formally put climate change disclosure on the list of things to do for reporting companies.

 

It is clearly a topic worthy of much longer treatment than I am able to give it while I am in New York attending the PLUS D&O Symposium, but the danger is that the disclosure requirement establishes the predicate for a plaintiff to later claim that a public company failed to meet its climate change-related disclosure obligations. In my view, the SEC’s issuance of the interpretive guidance brings us that much closer to the day when we may start to see D&O claims arising out of misrepresentations or omissions concerning climate change related disclosures.

 

The End of the World: In response to my recent statement that I was tired and could use a nap, one of my much younger colleagues replied "O.K, first we take zee nap, ZEN WE DEESTROY ZEE WORLD!" She undoubtedly saw from the puzzled look on my face that I didn’t have a clue what she was talking about, so she immediately sat down and showed me this YouTube video, which she described as "the original viral Internet video." Readers should be forewarned that  the video uses vulgar language and contains humor that some may find crude or offensive. It is also seriously funny. Viewer discretion is, however, strongly advised.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs%26hl%3Den_US%26fs%3D1%26

In a 90-page January 27, 2010 opinion (here) District of New Mexico Judge James Browning granted substantial parts of the defendants’ motions to dismiss in the Thornburgh Mortgage subprime securities suit, while also denying the motions to dismiss in connection with certain claims against Larry Goldstone, who served as the company’s President and COO, and after December 2007, as its CEO.

 

Judge Browning’s rulings dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims under the ’33 Act as well as many of the plaintiffs’ claims under the ’34 Act, except for the claims against Goldstone, which will go forward. Judge Browning reserved any ruling on the claims against the company itself, which is in bankruptcy, as well as to allegations of control person liability against three individual defendants, as those claims depend first upon the possibility of the company’s liability.

 

In a separate 38-page January 27, 2010 opinion (here), Judge Browning also granted the dismissal motions of the offering underwriter defendants, ruling that the plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint failed to allege sufficiently any material misrepresentations or omissions in the relevant offering documents.

 

Background

Thornburg was a publicly traded residential-mortgage lender focused on the market for "jumbo" and "super jumbo" adjustable rate mortgages. Beginning in 2006, real estate values around the country began to falter, but Thornburgh denied that it was affected, claiming its superior underwriting standards insulated the company from the deteriorating conditions. Thornburg’s executives also denied that it originated "subprime" or Alt-A mortgages.

 

Thornburg’s business model depended on a variety of borrowing and capital mechanisms to fund its lending activities. Thornburg maintained an investment portfolio as collateral for its borrowing. Plaintiffs allege that the portfolio consisted in part of securities backed by Alt-A mortgages, and that these securities were both illiquid and, in 2007, declining in value, which in turn triggered certain margin calls.

 

Specifically, in August 2007, Thornburg was forced to sell 35% of the highest-rated assets in its portfolio to meet margin calls, which in turn triggered both a stock price decline and the filing of the first of several securities class action suits against the company.

 

During 2007 and 2008, the company completed several securities offerings. However, Thornburgh also continued to face additional margin calls, and on February 28, 2008, J.P. Morgan notified the company of its failure to meet margin call requirements, triggering cross default provisions in other short term borrowing arrangements.

 

On March 4, 2008, the company’s auditor withdrew its unqualified audit opinion "due to conditions and events that were known or that should have been known to the company." On March 11, 2008, Thornburg filed a restatement of its prior financials. On March 19, 2008, Thornburg announced it had entered a "bailout" agreement with its remaining lenders that resulted in a substantial dilution of shareholders’ interests.

 

On May 1, 2009, Thornburg filed a petition for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

 

The plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended class action complaint on May 27, 2008, on behalf of persons who purchased Thornburg shares between April 19, 2007 and March 19, 2008. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants had failed to disclose that the company was facing increasing margin calls and that its financial condition had deteriorated to the point where it was forced to sell assets. The plaintiffs further alleged that the company failed to disclose that it originated Alt-A mortgages and possessed a multi-million dollar portfolio backed by Alt-A loans.

 

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Thornburg’s losses were the result of market forces beyond defendants’ control.

 

The January 27, 2010 Order

In his January 27 order, Judge Browning first focused on the plaintiffs allegations under Section 10(b). He found with respect to many of the statements or omissions that most of them were not false or misleading or related to matters that the company had no duty to disclose. He also found that the plaintiffs had not specifically attributed any wrongful conduct or statements to any of the individual defendants other than Goldstone, and therefore he granted the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims as to all individual defendants other than Goldstone.

 

However, Judge Browning found that Goldstone had in several public statements sought to attribute the downturn to problems with Alt-A lenders, from which he sought to differentiate Thornburg. Judge Browning found that "on at least two occasions" in June and July 2007, Goldstone made statements that "could be construed and reasonably understood as asserting that [Thornburg} did not engage in Alt-A lending or purchase Alt-A assets," statements which Judge Browning found were false and misleading, taking the plaintiffs’ allegations to be true.

 

Judge Browning also found that statements in the company’s 2007 10-K (which Goldstone signed) about the presence of cross-default provisions in the company’s borrowing agreements also to be false and misleading.

 

On the issue of scienter, Judge Browning rejected the defendants’ suggestion that the absence of insider selling and the presence of insider buying negated the inference of scienter, finding rather that the financial crisis itself "provides another motive that adequately fills the gap left by the lack of suspicious insider-trading activity: survival." Judge Browning said that it was a plausible inference that the defendants were motivated by a desire to help the company survive the crisis, although this allegation alone is not sufficient to establish an inference of scienter.

 

Rather, Judge Browning held that Goldstone’s repeated efforts to distance the company from the mortgage crisis by differentiating the company from Alt-A mortgage originators, "gives rise to a strong inference that Goldstone was attempting to hide from the market that [Thornburg] engaged in Alt-A or subprime lending, and knew, or recklessly disregarded that withholding this information would mislead investors." Thornburg’s omission from its 2007 10-K of its failure to meet the J.P. Morgan margin call, and of the consequent triggering of cross-defaults in other agreements, suggests that Thornburg was "concealing information."

 

The most plausible inference, Judge Browning found, was that Thornburg was "a sinking ship," but that the defendants "tried to stay positive" and that Goldstone "made some statements that crossed the line between optimistic and false and/or misleading."

 

Judge Browning granted the motions to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims based on Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the ’33 Act, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to allege any false or misleading statements in the relevant offering documents.

 

Due to its pending bankruptcy proceeding, Judge Browning reserved any ruling on the claims against Thornburg itself, as well as on the control person liability allegations under the ’34 Act that are predicated on the sufficiency of claims against the company.

 

Finally, as noted above, in a separate order, Judge Browning granted the dismissal motions of the offering underwriter defendants, based on his finding that the plaintiffs had failed to allege any false or misleading statements in the relevant offering documents.

 

Discussion

Judge Browning’s exhaustive analysis and his rulings are significant on several levels. First, his order present another example where a court has been willing to dismiss ’33 Act claims in a subprime-related securities class action lawsuit. As I noted in my recent post discussing the ACA Capital Holdings case, where ’33 Act claims were also dismissed, it previously had been the case that courts appeared reluctant to dismiss ’33 Act claims in subprime-related securities lawsuits. But with the ACA Capital Holdings rulings, and now with the rulings in the Thornburg case, the suggestion that Section 11 claims are likelier to survive dismissal motions seems to be less certain, if not entirely unsubstantiated.

 

Judge Browning’s analysis of the scienter issue is also significant. His willingness to overlook the defendants’ insider buying is interesting and noteworthy, particularly in light of his willingness to draw an inference that the defendants were motivated – and perhaps motivated enough to make misleading statements – by a desire to help the company survive the downturn.

 

Many defendants in many other subprime and credit crisis-related cases were similarly motivated to try to help their companies ride out the crisis. To be sure, not all companies or their officials made statements that plaintiffs in those cases will be able to allege diverged from actual circumstances at their companies. But the fact that the plaintiffs in the Thornburg Mortgage case were able to survive the dismissal motion, and to overcome the absence of any insider trading and the presence of insider buying, suggests one possible way that other plaintiffs may overcome initial pleading hurdles.

 

Judge Browning granted the dismissal motions in very substantial part, eliminating almost all of the defendants and many of the plaintiffs’ claims. But the plaintiffs were able to survive the dismissal motions at least as to certain substantial allegations against at least one defendant. Large swaths of their case were cut away, but enough made it through to give them a chance to live for another day and to try to salvage something from the case.

 

Because what remains is substantial, even if only a small part of what was initially alleged, I have placed these rulings on my list of dismissal motion denials, in my running tally of dismissal motion rulings in subprime and credit crisis-related securities suits. My table of dismissal motion rulings can be accessed here.

 

More Failed Banks: On January 29, 2010, the FDIC took control of six more banks, bringing the year to date number of bank failures already this year to 15. By contrast, at this same point in 2009, there had only been a total of six bank failures. The bank failure closure rate is on pace for a total of 180 bank failures in 2010, compared to the 140 banks that failed in 2009.

 

The 15 bank failures so far this year have been spread across ten different states, with three bank failures already this year in the state of Washington, and two each in Georgia, Minnesota, and Florida.

 

This Week: I will be attending the PLUS D&O Symposium at the Marriott Marquis in New York this week. I know many readers will also be there. I hope that if you see me at the Symposium that you will say hello, particularly if we have not met before. While I am away for the Symposium, The D&O Diary may run a reduced publication schedule. "Normal" publication will resume next week. See you in New York.

 

In recent posts (here and here), I have discussed the issues surrounding coverage under D&O insurance policies for investigative costs and special litigation committee expenses. In response to these posts, readers Jeff Kiburtz and Cindy Forman of the Santa Monica law firm of Shapiro Rodarte & Forman have submitted the following guest blog post. This guest post of course reflects the views of the post’s authors, and not necessarily those of the author of The D&O Diary. Cindy and Jeff’s guest post is as follows:  

 

Having recently ended an unusual week straight of rain in normally sunny Los Angeles, the saying "when it rains it pours" comes to mind. This phrase aptly describes the situation in which many companies find themselves when revelations of accounting irregularities or other alleged misconduct surface – first there is a story in the press, then a letter indicating the SEC opened an informal investigation, next a DOJ subpoena, and, sometime during this period, the company’s stock drops and a shareholder makes a demand for an investigation or forgoes the demand and files a derivative suit.

 

The response to this downpour is immediate and expensive. Typically, at least three sets of law firms are retained – one to handle the government investigations and private litigation, a second to conduct an internal investigation and report to a special committee established by the company, and a third, which usually consists of several different firms, to defend the implicated directors and officers.

 

Recognizing the potential to spend large amounts of money very quickly, in-house counsel and the company’s outside lawyers move to create a division of labor between the various firms to coordinate the overall effort. Central projects such as the review, coding and scanning for privilege of all of the documents potentially relevant to the underlying issue are assigned to a specific firm, frequently the internal investigation counsel. Work specific or unique to the various groups is, however, done by the respective group’s own counsel.

 

Although each firm represents the unique interests of their clients, and potential or actual conflicts are therefore implicit, in many circumstances the various interests are largely aligned and the attorneys can and do work together for the mutual benefit of all. If, for example, the company needs to respond to a DOJ document subpoena, there is no reason their theoretically diverging interests should prevent the company’s defense counsel from tapping into the document review work done by the internal investigation counsel to locate responsive documents.

 

The single greatest beneficiary of this collaboration is the company, which in many circumstances is required to pay the bill for all of the various lawyers. We would think that, by extension, the company’s D&O insurers would also see and appreciate the extent to which collaboration between the various groups reduces the overall legal spend. It seems, however, that many D&O insurers are quite restrained in their enthusiasm, often declining coverage for various categories of fees incurred by the company under numerous theories. One fee category that is almost uniformly declined is fees incurred by internal investigation counsel, which, perhaps coincidentally, also happens to be the largest single line-item in many situations.

 

When declining coverage for internal investigation fees, insurers often argue that because the definition of "Claim" does not specifically reference internal investigations, fees incurred by internal investigation counsel were not incurred "in connection with a Claim." Insurers also argue that the internal investigation counsel represents only the special committee, which typically is not one of the enumerated categories of "Insureds" under most D&O policies. A related argument is that internal investigation counsel is supposed to be neutral and objective, such that their work cannot be described as defensive in nature and, therefore, cannot be considered "defense costs."

 

Most policyholders regard these arguments as formalistic and compartmentalized, divorced from the business realities of these "when it rains it pours" situations. For one, the carriers do not give adequate consideration to the fact that much of the internal investigation work (e.g., construction of an electronic document database and obtaining witness statements) is relevant and necessary to defending any securities claim or government investigation, and would need to be performed even in the absence of any internal investigation. In this sense, the insurer’s objection is one of form not substance, as the nature of the substantive work is less relevant to the insurer than the designation of the firm who handled that work (e.g., document review conducted by defense counsel is admittedly covered, but that same work is allegedly not covered merely because it was performed by internal investigation counsel).

 

Further, the insurers’ arguments tend to disregard the direct and obvious connection between the allegations of and investigation into potential wrongdoing and the coordinated effort taken and paid for by the company to investigate and respond in an appropriate manner. When the allegations surface, all of the attorneys involved, whether they represent the company, the special committee or the individual insureds. need to review documents and interview witnesses to determine the relevant underlying facts that impact their respective clients’ interests. It often is not until much later, if at all, that facts surface which demonstrate that the various parties’ interests are in fact adverse. That the information gained during the earlier investigation phases might be used by the special committee in a manner inconsistent with coverage (e.g., advising the board to pursue litigation against directors and officers) does not justify a wholesale declination of all fees incurred by the special committee.

 

A few of these issues came up in the recent MBIA v. Federal Ins. Co. coverage action Kevin has addressed (here and here), where the court seemed not to have been overly warm to the legal principles underlying the insurer’s arguments.

 

 

Federal argued that the firm which handled the internal investigation, Dickstein Shapiro, represented only the special committee, not the company or any of the other insureds. Although the court dismissed this argument on a factual basis (finding that Dickstein made an appearance on behalf of the company in the securities litigation), it also noted that, independent of this fact, the special committee was comprised of members of the board of directors who were expressly charged with acting in the best interest of the company and who "could readily reach independent decisions without being independent of [the company]." While this portion of the opinion could have been more clear, the court’s decision cuts against both the notion that special committees are necessarily separate "entities" from the company and that their required independence precludes characterizing as "defense costs" the work done on their behalf.

 

Another aspect of the court’s decision in MBIA is also worth noting. Insurers frequently argue that internal investigation counsel’s work was not performed "in connection with a Claim," but rather was performed "in connection with" something other than a "Claim," e.g., an internal investigation. This argument makes relevant the causal nexus implied by the "in connection with" language. Policyholders often argue that the implied nexus in this non-exclusionary term is very broad, something akin to an incidental or minimal causal connection; for example, the fees are covered if they bear some reasonable relationship to a covered claim. In our experience, insurers appear reluctant to characterize the allegedly required nexus, but by implication seem to suggest something like predominant causation; for example, the fees are covered only if the predominant reason for doing the work was to defend against the covered claim. While it does not appear that the parties in the MBIA case briefed this issue, by finding coverage for the internal investigation fees related to the derivative suits the court arguably recognized that "in connection with" implies only a minimal causal connection in this context.

 

The insurance bar is likely concerned by the MBIA decision, as it could have widespread implications. It will be interesting to see whether Federal seeks appellate review or whether insurers in the future will simply seek to downplay the significance of a district court decision and attempt to confine it to the facts before the court. 

 

The D&O Diary would like to thank Cindy and Jeff again for their submission of this guest post. The D&O Diary accepts appropriate guest posts from responsible commentators on topics relevant to this blog. My goal in hosting guest posts is to encourage discussion of important topics and to facilitate the exchange of contrasting points of view. Readers who are interested in submitting guest posts should feel free to let me know using the "Contact" function on this blog. 

 

 

According to January 29, 2010 reports in the New York Times (here) and on Bloomberg (here), the jury in the long-running securities class action lawsuit against Vivendi has resulted in a verdict against the company on all 57 of the plaintiffs’ claims. However, the jury also found that the two individual defendants, former Vivendi CEO Jean Marie Messier and former Vivendi CFO, were not liable. According to published reports, damages (with prejudgment interest) could be as much as $9 billion.  

This case involved the financial impact on the company from the $46 billion December 2000 merger between Vivendi, Seagram’s entertainment businesses, and Canal Plus. The plaintiffs contended that as a result of this and other debt-financed transactions, Vivendi experienced growing liquidity problems throughout 2001 that culminated in a liquidity crisis in mid-2002, as a result of which, the plaintiffs contend, Vivendi’s CEO Jean-Marie Messier and CFO Guillaume Hannezo were sacked.

 

The plaintiffs contended that the between October 2000 and July 2002, the defendants misled investors by causing the company to issue a series of public statements "falsely stating that Vivendi did not face an immediate and severe cash shortage that threatened the Company’s viability going forward absent an asset fire sale. It was only after Vivendi’s Board dislodged Mr. Messier that the Company’s new management disclosed the severity of the crisis and that the Company would have to secure immediately both bridge and long-term financing or default on its largest credit obligations." 

 

Additional background regarding the case and the plaintiffs’ allegations can be found here.

 

As reflected in data compiled by Adam Savett on the Securities Litigation Watch (here) since the enactment of the PSLRA in 1995, a total of nine securities class action lawsuits (counting Vivendi) have been tried to verdict. Of those nine, and after all post verdict motions and appeals, defendants have prevailed in five and plaintiffs have prevailed in four. Among the cases in which plaintiffs have prevailed is the Household International securities class action trial, which on May 7, 2009  resulted in a plaintiff’s verdict on the issue of liability (about which refer here.). Damages are also to be determined later in that case.

 

Though plaintiffs have prevailed in the Vivendi trial, at least as to their claims regarding the company, this case undoubtedly has much further to go. Not only will there be post-verdict motions and further proceedings regarding damages, but there almost certainly will be subsequent appeals. Indeed, Vivendi has already indicated that it would appeal if the verdict were unfavorable. Among other things, the case presents significant jurisdictional issues, particularly with respect to the claims of certain foreign domiciled investors. These issues are now pending before the Supreme Court in the National Australia Bank case.

 

But the bottom line is that the two securities class action cases that have gone to the jury in the last 12 months have resulted in verdicts in plaintiffs’ favor, a development the plaintiffs’ bar will certainly tout as significant .

 

On January 27, 2010, NERA Economic Consulting released its updated annual review of Canadian securities class litigation entitled "Trends in Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2009 Update" (here). The report presents an interesting study of the evolution of class action litigation in a jurisdiction outside the U.S.

 

According to the report, there were eight new securities class action lawsuits filed in 2009, which is fewer that the ten filed in 2008 "but still greater than filings in previous years." With the addition of the eight new cases, there are now 23 pending securities class actions, representing more than $14.7 billion in claims. Most of these cases were filed in the last three years although some of the pending cases were filed almost 10 years ago.

 

Though the number of new filings is noteworthy, the more significant developments may be the class certifications in three cases and the ruling allowing the IMAX securities class action plaintiffs leave to proceed under the new Ontario securities laws. (My prior detailed discussion of the rulings in the IMAX case can be found here.). The NERA report comments that these rulings "may ultimately prove to be an inflection point" for securities class action litigation in Canada.

 

Though there were significant new filings in 2009, one noteworthy feature of the cases that were filed is the "absence in Canada of class actions filings relating to the credit crisis." This absence may be due in part to the relatively smaller impact of the credit crisis in Canada compared to the U.S. and the negotiated $32 billion restructuring of the Canadian Asset Backed Commercial Paper market, which may have preempted further litigation.

 

Six cases settled in 2009 for a total of approximately $51 million, for an average of approximately $8.5 million and a median of approximately $9 million (which is roughly comparable to the median settlement of U.S. securities class action lawsuits). 2009 settlements averaged 13.7% of the amount of claimed damages. Cases with cross-border litigation counterparts in the U.S. tended to settle for larger amounts both in terms of absolute dollars and as a percentage of claimed damages.

 

According to a January 27, 2010 article in the Vancouver Sun (here), the number of filings and the procedural developments (including the rulings in the IMAX case) are "a wake up call for publicly traded companies." Law firms are "advising their clients to revisit their compliance and corporate-governance procedures to protect against similar suits."

 

One lawyer quoted in the article says that he is also advising his clients to review their corporate insurance, as well. He goes on to state that "We’ve seen over the years there are a lot of problems in terms of clients don’t really have the type of coverage they need."

 

Yet, as for the question of whether there may be a flood of litigation, one plaintiffs’ attorney quoted in the article sounds a note of caution. The attorney, Dimitri Lascaris, who is one of the lead attorneys in the IMAX case, notes that that the Canadian system still provides for adverse costs, and even the liberalized standard under the new Ontario law are time consuming and expensive. So, he says, "we’re never going to achieve the level of activity in securities class actions that we see in the United States."

 

In light of these developments and their potential significance regarding insurance coverage, the session planned for the upcoming PLUS D&O Symposium (scheduled next Wednesday and Thursday in New York) on the topic of Canadian Securities Class Action Litigation is quite timely. The panel will be moderated by my friend Dave Williams from Chubb (Canada) and planned speakers include a number of prominent players in the area in Canada, including Dimitri Lascaris. Information about the Symposium can be found here.

 

The Securities Litigation Watch blog has a post about the NERA study here.

 

Excess Side A Carrier Contributes to Options Backdating Settlement: On January 25, 2010, a judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania preliminarily approved the settlement of the options backdating lawsuit that had been filed against Black Box, as nominal defendant and certain of its directors and officers. As part of the settlement, the company agreed to pay plaintiffs’ counsel $1.6 million and the company agreed to adopt certain corporate governance measures.

 

As reflected in the parties’ stipulation of settlement (here), as part of the settlement, the company is to receive a payment of $1.5 million from its Excess Side A carrier as well as another $500,000 from its EPL carrier.

 

According to a January 25, 2010 article about the settlement in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (here), the company also separately settled a claim against the company by its former CEO, who left the company in connection with the options backdating related matters. At the time he left, the CEO claimed, the company took away over $19.6 million in options related compensation. The company settled these claims for its agreement to pay $4 million.

 

The Black Box settlement marks the second instance of which I am aware in which an Excess Side A carrier contributed toward an options backdating related derivative lawsuit settlement. (The first instance is the Broadcom settlement, about which refer here.) This is yet another instance where Excess Side A insurance is being called on to provide protection outside of the insolvency context. As I have previously noted, the Excess Side A carrier’s contribution to these settlements may be a significant development for the carriers, who have offered the product in a largely low loss environment, at least outside the insolvency context.

 

The settlement with the CEO is an odd component of this settlement. There aren’t many of these cases where the former CEO who left as a result of backdating related issues walked away with a cash payment.

 

I have in any event added the Black Box settlement to my table of options backdating related lawsuit settlements and dismissal motion rulings, which can be accessed here.

 

SEC Will Issue Guidance on Climate Change Disclosure: On January 27, 2010, the SEC voted 3-2 to provide interpretive guidance on existing dislosure requirements to require climate change related disclosure under certain circumstances. The SEC’s January 27 release can be found here. The SEC’s release states that the interpretive release will be posted on the SEC web site as soon as possible. The news release identifies several examples of situations that might trigger disclosure requirements, including: impact of legislation and regulation; impact of international accords; indirect consequences of regulation or business trends; and physical impacts of climate change.

 

Suit Against Rating Agencies Dismissed, But Without Reaching First Amendment Issues: According to a January 27, 2010 Am Law Litigation Daily article by Andrew Longstreth (here), Judge Lewis Kaplan has granted the motions of Moody’s and S&P to be dismissed from a securities lawsuit filed by certain investors who had invested in certain mortgage-backed securities underrwitten by Lehman Brothers. Judge Kaplan has not yet issued a written opinion but according to the article his opinion was based solely on the fact that the rating agencies didn’t have anything to do with the offering documents at issue in the case. HIs ruling reportedly did not reach the rating agencies first amendment defenses (about which refer here.)  

　

The problems facing many banks in the current economic environment are well-documented. For troubled banks’ directors and officers, the banks’ D&O insurance may represent a last line of protection. But what if the insurers could just cancel the policies? Surprisingly, many bank D&O insurers have that right under their policies, and while cancellation is rare, it is not unprecedented, and some insurers are now invoking that right to shed the risks associated with failing or problem institutions.

 

As reflected in a January 24, 2010 FinCri Advisor article entitled "Your D&O Insurer Might Be Scouring Your Call Report Looking to Cancel Coverage" (here), the policy forms of many bank D&O insurers have cancellation clauses that permit the insurer to cancel the policies mid-term, either because there is a "material change in the risk" or for any reason at all.

 

Many of these clauses are found only in policies that were issued on a multiyear basis, but even some single-year bank D&O insurance policies contain cancellation clauses. While many policies also specify that the insurer must give the policyholder 60 days (or more) notice so that the policyholder can try to replace coverage, the fact is that if something serious enough to cause the insurer to cancel coverage has occurred, it likely will be a very difficult time for the policyholder to try to find replacement coverage.

 

For D&O insurance practitioners who don’t venture into the Financial Institutions arena (or FI as it is known), the very existence of these clauses in bank D&O policies may come as a surprise, since these clauses do not appear in most mainstream commercial D&O insurance policies.

 

The obvious question is how did a cancellation clause get into bank D&O policies when it is rarely if ever seen in other kinds of D&O insurance policies? Part of the answer is that, particularly with respect to community banks, the D&O insurance marketplace has over the years become both very specialized and intensely competitive.

 

Before the current troubled bank era began, D&O insurance for community banks became increasingly less expensive. But as buyers became increasingly (or even exclusively) focused on price, some carriers looked for ways to trim coverage. And so a term such as the cancellation clause that isn’t seen in other D&O insurance policies found its way into the basic forms of several community bank D&O insurance carriers.

 

A neutral observer might question the value of a contract that one party can simply cancel unilaterally. The promise to provide insurance seems tenuous indeed if the insurer can walk away because problems have emerged – which is of course the very circumstance for which buyers purchase insurance in the first place.

 

All of this does raise the question of why any buyer would agree in the first place to accept a policy that has a cancellation clause. The answer is either that the buyer is unaware the clause is there or the buyer has no other choice.

 

Given the number of bank D&O insurers that have cancellation clauses in the policy forms, there undoubtedly are many banks whose policies have these clauses. I am guessing only a very small number of these banks (many of whom may have purchased their insurance on a direct basis) have any idea the clauses are there.

 

The problem is that the market for D&O insurance for banking institutions is in turmoil now due to the number of failed and troubled banks. For banks that are struggling, it may be challenging in the current environment to obtain a policy without a cancellation clause. Or, if they can a policy without a cancellation clause, the coverage afforded may otherwise be restricted (as for example, by the inclusion of a regulatory exclusion or the absence of past acts coverage).

 

Healthy financial institutions in many instances can still get coverage on a relatively attractive basis. Healthier banks should not have to accept a policy with a cancellation clause. However, even the healthy banks can only avoid the cancellation clause and other undesirable policy features if their advisor is well-informed and knows what to look and ask for.

 

One added note is that even some bank D&O policies that do not have cancellation clauses have other undesirable features that are almost as bad. For example, the policy form of at least one D&O insurer that is active with community banks does not allow the policyholder the option of purchasing extended reporting period coverage, even in the event of nonrenewal, which could have a similarly negative impact on a bank whose D&O insurance is not renewed. Again the presence or absence of an extended reporting period option is a term that the bank’s D&O insurance advisor will, if well-informed and knowledgeable, be looking for.

 

For the banks whose D&O insurers hit them with a notice of cancellation, the only recourse may be for the banks to provide their insurers with a "laundry list" notice of circumstances that may give rise to a claim – always a challenging proposition because of the uncertainty of knowing what claims may arise later. But the laundry list may be the only chance the bank has to lock in coverage before it is unilaterally taken away.

 

All of this underscores the critical importance for banks and for all insurance buyers of involving a knowledgeable and experience advisor in the acquisition of D&O insurance. Without informed advice, policyholders can be left with inadequate insurance protection when problems arise.

 

The individual defendants in the various Stanford Financial-related SEC enforcement and criminal proceedings have been engaged in a long-running and procedurally complicated battle over whether the firm’s D&O insurers must advance the individuals defense expenses. In a sweeping January 26, 2010 opinion (here), Southern District of Texas Judge David Hittner rejected the grounds on which the insurers sought to avoid coverage and ruled that the insurers must advance the individuals’ defense costs.

 

Background and the January 26 Opinion

The defense fee dispute has a complex procedural history but for purposes of the January 26 opinion the critical fact is that on November 16, 2009, the insurers sent the individuals letters "retroactively declining to extend coverage for costs." The insurers contended that coverage was precluded by the Policy’s "money laundering" exclusion. The exclusion precludes coverage for loss "arising directly or indirectly as a result of or in connection with any act or acts (or alleged act or acts) of Money Laundering," as that term is defined in the policy.

 

In his opinion, Judge Hittner noted that the carrier’s were not seeking to avoid coverage based on the exclusion precluding coverage for fraud or criminal misconduct, because that exclusion has a requirement of an "adjudication" that the precluded conduct had occurred. The money laundering exclusion has no "adjudication" requirement, leaving, the insurers’ argued, the determination that money laundering has in fact occurred, to the insurers.

 

Judge Hittner also noted parenthetically that the insurers urged this position even though only one of the twenty-one counts in the criminal action alleges money laundering or conspiracy to commit money laundering. (The insurers argued that the policy’s definition of money laundering was broad enough to encompass all of the allegations.)

 

The plaintiffs first opposed the insurers’ position based on the "eight corners" rule, arguing under Texas law that in determining an insurer’s defense obligations, a court may not consider anything beyond the four corners of the policy and the four corners of the complaint. Judge Hittner found that despite the insurers’ arguments to the contrary, the Supreme Court of Texas "never has recognized an exception to the eight corners rule."

 

Judge Hittner was in any event strongly against a broader view of what a court properly might consider in determining the insurers’ obligations.

 

If a contemporaneous duty to advance or reimburse defense costs were judge on an "actual facts" basis, an insurer’s contractual obligation to pay defense costs could change on a daily basis as additional "facts" are developed. Essentially, coverage that directors and officers relied upon and expected when the Policies were purchased on their behalf could be withdrawn at the insurer’s whim. If, as Underwriters suggest, the Policies afford Underwriters absolute discretion to withhold payments whenever charges of intentional dishonesty are leveled against directors and officers, then insurers will be able to withhold payment in virtually every case at their discretion. That would leave directors and officers in an extremely vulnerable postion , as any allegation of dishonesty, not matter how groundless, could bring financial ruin on a director or officer. Essentially an insurer could act as judge and jury and convict its own insureds, thus avoiding any further financial responsibility for the insureds’ defense. This simply cannot be the case. (Citations omitted.)

 

The court found in applying the eight corners rule that the allegations were insufficient to establish that the precluded conduct had occurred. The insurers nevertheless sought to argue that the individuals refusal to testify in support of the application for a preliminary injunction is proof enough that the allegations against the individuals are true. The insurers sought to argue that the refusal to testify supported an inference that money laundering did in fact occur.

 

Judge Hittner held that the "given the magnitude, complexity and nature of the charges," he declined to draw the inference, and that in any event, because of the eight corners rule, the insurers’ reliance on the supposed inference from the individuals refusal to testify is "misplaced."

 

Judge Hittner, applying the standard required for a preliminary injunction motions ruled that though the money laundering exclusion does not require a judicial determination to apply, the exclusion’s requirements "also may mean much more than an insurer’s own determination." He said that he need not decide what level of factual determination must be made, and instead ruled only that plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits at trial, satisfying the standard for awarding preliminary injunctive relief.

 

The court, in further consideration of the preliminary injunction standard, noted that the plaintiffs would suffer "irreparable harm" if the relief they sought was withheld. He noted that it is "unmistakable and cannot be seriously disputed" that the harm the individuals will suffer is "real, immediate and irreparable." He rejected the insurers contrary position that, he said, would "essentially require [the individuals] to prove their innocence." Judge Hittner commented that
 

 

Underwriters’ position is absurd because these circumstances are precisely why corporations procure D&O insurance on behalf of their directors and officers. Indeed, it would contravene the very purpose of the Policies – as well as the policy language itself – to require Plaintiffs to prove their innocence before being entitled to funds for their defense.

 

Judge Hittner found the harm to the insurers from granting the preliminary injunction was relatively slight and that public interest also weighed in favor of granting the preliminary injunction. He finally held that the individuals did not have to post a bond.

 

Discussion

Given the nature of the allegations against the individuals and the notoriety of the circumstances, as well as the number of people who lost money as a result of the collapse of Stanford Financial, the tone and temperature of Judge Hittner’s words are a little surprising. If nothing else is clear, Judge Hittner was certain that individuals needed to be able to defend themselves, and the insurers were obliged to provide the defense. The depth of Judge Hittner’s discussion of these defense cost issues are such that his words may prove useful for other individuals who are seeking to have their defense expenses paid under their policies.

 

You do get the sense that Judge Hittner ducked the hard issue – that is, if the money laundering exclusion, unlike the fraud exclusion, doesn’t have an "adjudication" requirement, then an adjudication can’t be required, so what is sufficient? Given Judge Hittner’s certainty that the eight corner rule is absolute under Texas law, there might be no way to meet the requirement. It does make you wonder whether it matters from a practical perspective whether or not there is an "adjudication" requirement.

 

Even though the usefulness of Judge Hittner’s determinations for others seeking insurance coverage arguably might be limited to those jurisdictions that also absolutely enforce the eight corners rule, the breadth of his pronouncements about the limitations on insurers’ ability to make preclusive coverage determinations virtually guarantees that his phrases will appear in the legal briefs of other individuals who are seeking defense cost coverage. His unwillingness to allow the individuals’ refusal to testify on their own behalf in the preliminary injunction proceeding may also prove helpful to other policyholders.

 

Because of the tone of Judge Hittner’s rhetoric and the high profile nature of the case, I suspect there may be some strong views about this decision. I invite readers who have thoughts about this decision to add their views to this post using the blog’s comments feature.

 

A January 26, 2010 Bloomberg article about Judge Hittner’s ruling can be found here.

 

Special thanks to Bill Schreiner of the Zuckerman Spaeder law firm for providing me with a copy of the decision.

 

Vivendi Watch: The Vivendi securities class action case went to the jury on January 11, 2010, but still no verdict. The parties are anxiously awaiting the verdict and in the meantime debating what the length of the jury deliberations may mean, according to a January 26, 2010 article by Andrew Longstreth on AmLaw Litigation Daily (here). The article also reports that almost regardless of the verdict, there will likely be an appeal, if for no reason that because of the potential jurisdictional implications of the National Australia Bank case now pending before the Supreme Court. Stay tuned (to the second power, apparently).

 

In a January 14, 2010 order (here), Southern District of New York Judge Robert W. Sweet granted the motion to dismiss in the ACA Capital Holdings subprime-related securities class action lawsuit. The decision is noteworthy in and of itself, but also because the plaintiffs’ securities claims were asserted under the ’33 Act. Subprime securities lawsuits asserting only ’33 Act claims have generally survived dismissal motions, but in the ACA Capital case the dismissal was granted — with prejudice.

 

ACA Capital, which went public on November 10, 2006, was in the business of offering financial guaranty insurance products to participants in the global derivatives markets, and in its asset management business, it structured and managed collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transactions. During 2007, ACA began to experience deterioration in the credit obligations underlying the CDO transactions. ACA experienced losses in its portfolio, which caused its share price to decline. In November 2007, credit rating agencies downgraded ACA. In August 2008 ACA entered a global settlement with its structured credit counterparties, as a result of which the company effectively ceased operations.

 

Plaintiffs initially filed their securities class action lawsuit against ACA and its CEO in November 2007. Background regarding the lawsuit can be found here. In their consolidated amended complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants ACA’s prospectus had failed to disclose that "at the time of the IPO, the Company had materially increased its exposure to highly risky sub-prime CDOs and was planning to complete several more sub-prime CDO deals in early 2007 that would greatly increase the Company’s exposure."

 

The plaintiffs further alleged that the Prospectus failed to disclose that due to "the rising default rates on sub-prime mortgages, it was highly likely that the Company would experience losses on the policies it had written to insure numerous CDOs and it would experience losses on its [collateralized debt securities] positions."

 

The defendants moved to dismiss, and in his January 14 order, Judge Sweet granted the defendants’ motion with prejudice.

 

Judge Sweet first held that, with respect to each of the sets of facts the plaintiffs alleged the defendants had failed to disclose that the allegedly omitted facts were disclosed in the Prospectus. He held that "the Prospectus’s disclosure of information alleged in the Complaint to have been withheld from prospective investors renders the Complaint insufficient as a matter of law."

 

The plaintiffs had also argued that the Prospectus had failed to comply with Item 303 of Regulation S-K by failing to describe "known trends and uncertainties" that the company faced. The plaintiffs argued that the Prospectus failed to disclose the existence of a "rising trend" of subprime foreclosures and delinquencies at the time of the IPO.

 

Judge Sweet held that the defendants could not be held liable for failing to disclose a trend of which they were unaware, and found that "the Complaint does not allege that the Defendants were actually aware of any purported ‘trend of delinquencies and foreclosures.’" Rather, many of the source on which the plaintiffs relied to try to establish the existence of a trend were not published until after the IPO. Only three of the sources on which plaintiffs relied were created prior to the IPO, one of which makes no references to delinquencies and foreclosures, another of which contains data reflecting less than a single calendar quarter (insufficient to show a "trend"), and material that was not publicly available at the time of the IPO.

 

Finally, Judge Sweet also granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of "negative causation" – that is, because, he found, that the complaint and the public filings on which the plaintiffs rely "establish that the decline in ACA’s stock was not caused by the allegedly false and misleading statements in the Prospectus." Instead, he found, "Plaintiffs cannot establish a causal relationship between Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and subsequent declines in ACA’s stock price."

 

While there have been other dismissal motions granted with prejudice in subprime-related securities class actions, this dismissal stands out because the ACA plaintiffs’ claims were asserted under the ’33 Act. As I discussed in a recent post (here), research by Jon Eisenberg of the Skadden law firm regarding subprime dismissal motion rulings showed that all of the cases he studied that only asserted ’33 Act claims had survived motions to dismiss, in part, he speculated because of the absence of scienter pleading requirements for ’33 Act claims. Even claims that alleged ’33 Act claims in addition to claims under the ’34 Act tended to have a better survival rate than claims that asserting ’34 Act claims alone.

 

In light of the other dismissal motion rulings, Judge Sweet’s dismissal of the ACA Capital complaint with prejudice makes the case a noteworthy victory for the defendants. A significant number of the subprime and credit crisis-related cases asserted only ’33 Act claims, so the defendants in those other cases undoubtedly will be closely reviewing the ACA decision to see if they can use the decision in their cases.

 

I have in any event added the ACA Capital decision to my list of subprime and credit crisis-related securities class action lawsuit dismissal motion rulings, which can be accessed here.

 

Special thanks to the several readers who sent me a copy of the ACA Capital decision.

 

Small World: Wikipedia reports (here) that Eliot Spitzer served as one of Judge Sweet’s law clerks. And in light of my reference above to the research of Skadden attorney Jon Eisenberg, it seems relevant to note that prior to going onto the federal bench in 1978, Judge Sweet was in private practice at the Skadden law firm.

 

Every now and then, I read a court opinion on a coverage issue, and though I can understand how the court reached its decision, I still find the outcome surprising and troubling. A January 19, 2010 per curiam opinion from the Connecticut Supreme Court (here) involving a coverage dispute under an Employment Practices Liability (EPL) policy presents a recent example of this kind of decision. The court’s analysis is internally logical, but I suspect the outcome would surprise most EPL policyholders and even many insurance practitioners. The decision may have important implications for the placement and administration of EPL insurance.

 

Background and the Connecticut Supreme Court’s Decision

National Waste Associates was purchased an EPL policy for the period February 15, 2007 to February 15, 2009. On May 12, 2007, a former employee brought a wrongful discharge action against National Waste. National Waste submitted the claim to its EPL carrier. The carrier refused to provide a defense or to indemnify the firm. National Waste filed a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration of coverage.

 

The carrier took the position that coverage was precluded by the EPL policy’s prior or pending action exclusion. The exclusion provides that the policy does not provide coverage for any claim "based upon, arising out of, [etc.] … any fact, circumstance, situation, transaction, event or wrongful act underlying or alleged in any prior or pending civil, criminal or administrative or regulatory proceeding."

 

The carrier contended that the prior or pending action exclusion had been triggered by the proceedings the employee had brought in 2005 to obtain unemployment benefits. As later recited by the Connecticut Supreme Court in its review of the case, the former employee had claimed, both in pursuing unemployment benefits and in the later wrongful discharge action, that she had been wrongfully discharged after resisting National Waste’s alleged invasion of her privacy.

 

The trial court agreed with the carrier that the unemployment benefit proceedings clearly constituted prior "administrative proceedings" within the meaning of the policy and granted the carrier’s motion for summary judgment. National Waste appealed.

 

In its January 19 per curiam opinion, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, adopting the trial court’s reasoning.

 

Discussion

The court’s reasoning is straightforward and internally logical, particularly if the unemployment benefits proceeding is, as seems to be the case, fairly characterized as an "administrative proceeding" within the meaning of the policy.

 

But as noted in a January 21, 2010 memorandum about the ruling from the Murtha Cullina law firm entitled "Employment Practices Liability Insurance: Surprise Coverage Interpretation" (here), the outcome "no doubt shocked" the employer. The law firm memo identifies the sharp distinction between, for example the circumstances that might be involved had the former employee raised an EEOC charge of discrimination in a prior period, and the circumstances actually presented, with the former employee’s prior filing of proceedings for unemployment benefits.

 

As the law firm memo observes:

 

Unemployment compensation claims are not only very common, but they are typically handled very differently by employers. (For example, employers rarely if ever engage legal counsel to attend unemployment compensation hearings.) The standard for denying unemployment benefits is so high that employers often do not even contest the claims. Even if they do contest, most former employees who lose their jobs for any reason collect benefits. If fact, a claim for unemployment benefits is not even really a claim "against" the employer – it is a claim for state benefits that are funded by a tax on all employers. Moreover no EPLI policy provides coverage for unemployment claims.

 

In light of all of these practical circumstances, it would come as an unexpected and inexplicable revelation to most employers to learn that an unemployment benefits claims in one policy period could preclude coverage for an employment practices claim in another period. The implication is that the employer has to notify their EPL carrier of the unemployment benefits claim in order to preserve EPL coverage if the former employed later files an employment practices claim.

 

Most employers would be completely astonished to learn that their EPL carrier expects to be provided with notice of unemployment benefits proceedings. Indeed the revelation of this expectation is so unanticipated that it has the feel of a trap for the unwary.

 

The message for policyholders and their advisors hoping to avoid the trap seems to be that companies should provide carriers with notice of every single instance where an employee or former employee seeks unemployment benefits. However, given the frequency of these types of proceedings, I suspect strongly that if policyholders gave notice of every instance where an employee or former employee is seeking unemployment benefits, the carriers would quickly find themselves drowning in paper. I doubt the carriers would really want what would ensue.

 

And regardless of what the carriers may want or even expect, it is a serious question whether, as a practical matter, it is fair to penalize companies for failing to take actions that the most companies would have no idea are required of them.

 

This may be one of those instances where the professional liability industry needs to come together to craft a solution to prevent an outcome that no one could possibly really want. (I have in mind the recent sequence of events where the D&O industry, in order to avert the consequences of an unexpected coverage decision, quickly took steps to try to eliminate the possibility of a carrier arguing that a Section 11 settlement did not represent covered "Loss.)

 

Maybe I am being optimistic, but perhaps policyholder representative and the carriers can find a solution that will ensure that EPL insurers will not take the position that an action for employment benefits is not a "claim" or an "administrative action" within the meaning of the policy.

 

I recognize that some readers may take exception, perhaps strong exception, to my analysis. I invite readers to submit their views using the comment feature on this blog.

　

Last year’s wave of bank failures had clearly carried over into the New Year. On Friday, January 22, 2010, the FDIC closed five more banks, already bringing the year to date number of bank closures to nine. (At this same point last year, the FDIC had only closed three banks, before eventually closing 140 banks for the entire calendar years.).

 

The nine banks that have failed so far this year are a surprisingly diverse bunch. The closures are distributed across eight different states. While three of the failed banks were tiny, with assets of under $70 million, three of then nine were pretty good sized, with assets of over $1 billion. Perhaps the most noteworthy discernable trait of the group is that three of them were located in the Pacific Northwest, two in Washington, one in Oregon. Bank failures are not unknown to that part of the country – including, of course, the Washington Mutual closure, the largest bank failure of all time.

 

But though the bank failures have continued to flood in, litigation involving the directors and officers of the failed institutions has – at least so far— been relatively light. Nevertheless, I continue to believe that it will only be a matter of time before the FDIC begins to file significant numbers of lawsuits. My expectation in this regard is largely driven by the fact that during the S&L crisis in the 80s and early 90s litigation was such an important component of the FDIC’s efforts to recoup its losses. The FDIC has filed a number of notices of claims with some bank officials and their D&O carriers, but so far it has not filed lawsuits in significant numbers.

 

While we all wait to see what the FDIC will do, investors in some failed banks are moving ahead with their own claims. For example, as reported in the January 15, 2010 Greeley (Colo.) Tribune (here), almost 60 investors filed a lawsuit on December 15, 2009 in Weld County (Colo.) District Court former directors and officers of New Frontier Bank. The bank, which was located in Greely, Colorado, was taken over by regulators in April 2009. Prior to its closing, the bank had assets of over $2 billion.

 

The circumstances surrounding New Frontier’s demise were the subject of a June 16, 2009 Wall Street Journal article entitled "Town’s Friendly Bank Left Nasty Mess" (here). Among other things, the article reports that the bank’s failure "is expected to set off a cascade of bankruptcies and foreclosures across several counties" and that companies that relied on the bank for financing "are cutting staff and curtailing payments to suppliers."

 

At least as depicted in the Journal article, New Frontier’s failure represents something of a modern day morality tale reflecting the excesses that can cause a banking crisis. New Frontier was particularly dependent on so-called "hot money" – that is, brokered deposits on behalf of investors seeking higher rates of return on their deposits. The flood of hot money facilitated the bank’s business lending, "leading to meteoric growth and favorable press." But, according to comments by the bank’s competitors quoted in the article, the bank "had looser credit requirements that virtually any other bank in town." The other banks reportedly used New Frontier as a safety valve, by urging their own customers that had fallen behind on their payments to refinance their loans at New Frontier.

 

One factor that proved particularly dangerous for the bank was its heavy concentration in agricultural loans, particularly for local dairies. A number of the borrowers fell behind or defaulted after prices for milk and other products fell. Many of the defaulting borrowers themselves now face ruin. The Journal’s photo essay about the bank’s failure, here, reflects the community and many of the individuals hit by the bank’s closure.

 

A flood of public accusations have followed in the wake of the bank’s failure. For example, the December 30, 2009 Denver Post had an article (here), reporting supposedly improper practices at the bank and also that the bank’s practices are the subject of a Department of Justice investigation.

 

According to the Greely Tribune article, the investors allege in their lawsuit that senior bank officials engaged in a host of improprieties including reckless lending activities without regard to loan quality, insider deals that improperly benefited board members and many instances of conflicts of interest among board members. Among other things, the complaint alleges that insiders received huge loans on preferred terms, and that the bank’s headquarter building was built by the construction company owned by one board member and that rather than owing the building outright, the bank leased it from a company owned by other board members, on terms that were heavily favorable to the leasing company.

 

The New Frontier circumstances may be unusual because of the nature of the concerns. But the level of scrutiny the bank is now facing in the wake of its closure is not uncommon. In many instances, the questions will eventually take the form of accusations presented in the form of a lawsuit. Before all is said and done, there will be many more lawsuits like that filed by the New Frontier investors. And that does not even take into account the lawsuits we are likely to see from the FDIC. I continue to believe that the arrival of failed bank lawsuits will be one of the top litigation stories of 2010.

 

None of this has been lost on the D&O insurance carriers. D&O insurance for many commercial banks has become a much more expensive proposition, and for some banks an outright challenge. As reflected in a January 15, 2010 article in the Atlanta Business Chronicle (here, registration required), banks’ D&O insurance costs have begun to "skyrocket across the board" and terms and conditions have narrowed substantially. The insurance marketplace is particularly difficult for banks operating under regulatory orders. In light of the continued wave of bank failures and the anticipated arrival of claims, the insurance marketplace conditions seem unlikely to improve anytime soon.

 

Special thanks to the several loyal readers who sent me many of the various items to which I linked in this post. I am always grateful when readers send me material, it helps me and it helps other readers as well.

 

Reflections on the Citizens United Case: The Internet is awash with instant analysis from the commentariat about the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case. I will leave it to the pundits to sound off about the case’s outcome. For myself, I was struck by the heated rhetoric of the majority opinion and the vehemence of the dissent. (Justice Stevens took the extraordinary step of reading his dissent from the bench, in a special session apparently scheduled for the purpose of allowing him to do so.)

 

The narrowness of the margin of decision is nothing new, since 5-4 opinions have been an unfortunate staple of the divided court for the last several years. But the tone of the language used in the opinions in the Citizens United case suggest that the Court’s proceedings have taken on a deeply personal character, with emotional overtones that have become all too public. It does kind of make you wonder what the heck is going on up there.

 

I have to admit that I am a sucker for the genre of popular literature in which the Court’s inner workings are "revealed." I devour books like Jeffrey Toobin’s The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Courtand Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court by Jan Crawford Greenburg. Among other things, these books underscore the fact that one of any President’s most enduring legacies is the identity of the justices he has named to the Court. The books also make clear that the shifting currents in Presidential politics in recent years have dramatically shaped the current Court’s composition. (For those interested in a casual but entertaining read about the Court, I particularly commend Toobin’s book.)

 

Because the Court is called on to decide some of our country’s most difficult and divisive issues, it is hardly surprising that the Court sometimes expresses itself in multiple voices. But even when issues are of paramount importance, a divided court is not inevitable.

 

I recently stumbled across the excellent biography of Earl Warren by journalist Jim Newton, entitled Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made. Newton’s entertaining and readable book convincingly argues that Warren was one of the most important Americans of the 20th Century. Warren’s career prior to ascending to the Court is itself fascinating, and his three terms as California’s governor transformed the state (although I couldn’t help but thinking that the Warren’s terms as governor may also have planted the seeds of many of California’s current financial woes.) Warren could easily have become President in 1948 or even 1952 (he was the Republican vice presidential candidate in 1948), if the Republicans could have overcome their East Coast bias.

 

Warren’s tenure on the court of course continues to be highly controversial, and there are many who will always carry virtual "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards around in the foremost part of their conscious brain. In many quarters, the Warren Court is a byword for reckless judicial activism. But it is almost impossible to imagine what our country would have been like were it not for the civil rights decisions of the Warren Court.

 

At the time Eisenhower nominated Warren to the bench, the Court had already heard oral argument on the Brown vs. Board of Education case, involving the racial segregation of Topeka’s public schools. However, under Warren’s predecessor, Fred Vinson, the justices had been unable to reach even a majority opinion on any of the issues presented and the case was put over to the following term for reargument. In the interim, Vinson died from a heart attack, and Warren came onto the bench.

 

After Warren joined the Court, the case was reargued. Newton shows how under Warren’s leadership and as a result of Warren’s formidable political skills, the Court was able to reach agreement on a single, unanimous opinion, reversing Plessy v. Ferguson and holding that "separate but equal is inherently unequal."

 

No one ever accused Warren of being the most intellectual justice. But his leadership skills and his ability to unite powerful personalities with strongly divergent views proved to be indispensible. Warren’s incomparable abilities allowed the Court to speak with a united, single voice. The moral authority this unanimity gave the Court finally allowed the country to move purposefully to try to start removing the shameful legacies of legalized racial segregation.

 

It all too easy to forget now, but it was only ten short years from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Brown v. Board of Education to Congress’s enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Can you imagine what this country would have been like if the Court had not spoken forcefully and with a unified voice during the civil rights era? I grew up in Virginia in the 60’s and I can still remember the "Coloreds Only" counter at the soda fountain inside the local drug store. How long would absolutely appalling conditions like that have continued if the Court had dithered?

 

The Warren Court was of course not always unanimous and many of its legacies remain highly controversial. But at its finest, the Warren Court showed how powerful the Court can be when it is strong and united.

 

For some time and for many reasons, the Supreme Court has been much more prone to speaking with multiple, deeply disparate voices. 5-4 opinions that overturn recent cases (which include opinions both by the Court’s liberal wing and its conservative wing) risk undermining the authority with which the court speaks, because voting majorities can shift so easily. If such slight variations are sufficient for the Court to cast aside even its most recent decisions, then its work becomes of little more enduring value than yesterday’s newspapers. The Court’s haphazard demolition of its own precedents not only begets inconsistency and unpredictability but it risks breeding a disrespect of the authority of the law.

 

It may be that the Court’s divisions are simply are reflection of divisions within our country, and of the way those divisions have driven the outcomes of Presidential elections in recent years. But I wonder if part of the problem might not be the kind of person that all recent Presidents have preferred for the Court. Because of certain explicit and implicit litmus tests, recent Presidents have overwhelmingly preferred to nominate to the court only judges with long judicial track records, on the theory that the judicial record provides some reassurance of the nominee’s ideology.

 

I wonder if the Court might shed some of its venomous division if there were more justices nominated whose qualifying experience was not limited to service in the judiciary. After all, the circuit courts are more than just a farm team for the highest bench, and the Supreme Court would benefit from the judgment of men and women whose world views reflected more than what can be gleaned on the inside of an appellate courtroom. I wonder whether a President would have the courage to nominate persons of intelligence and integrity whose experience includes more than just prior judicial service and who would bring with them more than mere ideological reliability.

 

In any event, it is worth remembering that the Supreme Court is not inevitably divided. Perhaps the most important legacy of the Warren Court is the reminder that at a critical moment in the country’s history, the Court was united. For those of us of moderate views who recoil instinctively from ideological extremism, the Court’s inability to command greater moral authority by speaking with a more consistent, more unified voice, and in particular its willingness to exploit a fragile majority to run roughshod over its own recent decisions, is deeply distressing.