Over the years, legislative reforms of the U.S. securities laws have cycled back and forth, between initiatives, on the one hand, to discourage abusive litigation and, on the other hand, to restrain corporate misconduct. In the current Wall Street bailout, post-Madoff environment, sentiment may be running high for legislative reforms that could expand liabilities under the federal securities laws. But though the time for reform may be now, the window of opportunity may be short.

 

According to a January 2010 Wall Street Lawyer article by Boris Feldman of the Wilson Sonsini firm entitled "The Coming Counter-Reformation in Securities Litigation" (here), the best shot for reforms favorable to the plaintiffs’ bar "may be right now—before the mid-term elections in 2010 can create a filibuster firewall in the Senate." In his article, Feldman looks at the most likely areas of reform and the likelihood of the initiatives’ success.

 

The "most important priority for the plaintiffs’ bar" will be the institution of private securities liability for aiding and abetting violations of the securities laws. (There are in fact already current Congressional initiatives to accomplish that very change, about where refer here and here.) This change, were it enacted, would made the biggest difference in the "big frauds," where the "primary wrongdoer is usually bust." If the company’s professionals were "on the hook," then the "entire calculus would change," as the "pot" would then "consist of more than a claim in bankruptcy and some D&O insurance policies."

 

The "real battle" about prospective aiding and abetting liability, according to Feldman, will be how — not whether– it is instituted. Questions such as who bears the burdens of proof and persuasion and the state of mind required for liability "will determine whether aiding and abetting liability is a measured response to the current situation or a license to subject outside advisors to in terrorem risk."

 

The next likely target for the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Feldman suggests, is the discovery stay, which has been one of the PSLRA’s "great frustrations" for the plaintiffs’ bar. Feldman suggests that the plaintiffs’ will seek to modify the discovery stay, rather than try to have it overturned. He suggests that one alternative might be a "good cause" exception to the stay. Another alternative is the creation of an exception to the stay for documents already produced to governmental authorities.

 

Feldman also suggest that the plaintiffs’ bar may attack the PSRLA’s pleading requirements, or alternatively seek to rely on initiatives to set aside the "facial plausibility" pleading standard of Twombley and Iqbal (about which refer here).

 

Finally, Feldman suggests that the plaintiffs’ bar may see to limit the impact of Dura Pharmaceuticals, perhaps through reforms specifying that the loss causation issue is to be addressed only at the summary judgment or trial stage.

 

One area Feldman suggests that plaintiffs are unlikely to seek reforms is with respect to the PSLRA’s lead plaintiff requirements. Though these provisions were controversial when first enacted, the plaintiffs’ bar has now "adapted happily" to the requirements, and with institutional investor relationships firmly in place, there is "no incentive for the plaintiffs’ bar to tinker with these provisions."

 

Feldman closes by noting that the "electoral clock is ticking," with the likelihood of legislative action, if any, before fall 2010. He confesses "surprise" that the legislative reforms were not launched a year ago, when the 2008 electoral results were still fresh. Feldman notes that the fact that the plaintiffs’ bar missed this opportunity "may have something to do with absences in their leadership ranks in recent years."

 

Feldman suggests that the "most likely" way these reforms may come about is through the activities of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which, Feldman notes, has "strong ties to the plaintiffs’ bar" (about which refer here), a fact that may allow the plaintiffs’ bar "to try to get some of their reforms into the recommendations of the Commission."

 

I note that Feldman published his article before last week’s special election in Massachusetts. The election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate seat vacated by the late Edward Kennedy seems to have scrambled everything. Although I don’t profess to have any particular insight into Congressional dynamics, I wonder whether the possible November effect Feldman anticipates in his memo has now been pushed forward through the calendar. The "filibuster firewall" may already be gone. Without a doubt, every member of Congress facing election this fall is proceeding with significantly greater wariness in the wake of the recent Massachusetts senatorial election. All of which makes me wonder whether or not the window of opportunity on some of these legislative proposals may have been substantially narrowed, if not altogether closed.

 

Opt-Outs Down and Out: Much has been written (refer for example here) about the growing phenomenon of class action securities lawsuit settlement opt-outs – that is, the investor class members who choose not to participate in the class action lawsuit settlement and instead pursue their own individual claims. One of the recurring themes has been how much better the opt-outs do than they would have if they remained in the class.

 

However, as shown in the outcome of a recent case involving Aspen Technology, there is no guarantee that the opt outs will do better by proceeding separately.

 

Aspen and several of its directors and officers had been sued in a securities class action lawsuit in November 2004 (about which refer here). The securities class action lawsuit ultimately settled for $5.6 million, but several class members representing 1.4 million shares of common stock opted out of the class action settlement and filed their own "direct action" lawsuit against the defendants in Massachusetts state court.

 

As reported on the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here), the Aspen Technology investors’ direct action lawsuit didn’t go so well for them. In a January 13, 2010 opinion (here), Massachusetts (Suffolk County) Superior Court Justice Judith Fabricant ruled that "no fraud occurred" and that "defendants are entitled to judgment on all counts of the complaint." In a memo about the decision (here), Skadden, the defense firm in the case, reports that Justice Fabricant also awarded defendants recovery from the plaintiffs of their costs in the case.

 

Options Backdating Securities Suit Dismissal Affirmed: One of the 39 options backdating related securities class action lawsuits involved claims against Jabil Circuit. The case may have been among the more noteworthy options backdating-related securities lawsuit filings, because Jabil Circuit was among the small group of companies specifically mentioned by name in the original March 2006 Wall Street Journal article ("The Perfect Payday") that launched the options backdating scandal. Among other things, the article calculated the likelihood that the Jabil options grants occurred randomly as "one in a million."

 

As noted in an earlier post (here), the Jabil Circuit options backdating-related securities lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice in April 2008. In a January 2009 order (here) on the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

 

In a January 19, 2010 decision (here), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, holding the plaintiffs’ allegations "fail to meet the heightened pleading standards" under the PSLRA.

 

Among other things, the court said that "the allegations of misrepresentations, responsibility for granting misdated options, and personal profiteering fail to raise a strong enough inference of scienter" and that "the allegations contained in the complaint do not create an inference of scienter that is at least as probable as a non-fraudulent explanation—namely that none of the Appellees knew of the accounting errors until the investigation began in 2006"

 

I have updated my table of the outcomes in the Options Backdating-related lawsuits to reflect the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Jabil Circuit. The table can be accessed here.

 

In an earlier post (here), I wrote about a December 30, 2009 ruling in the MBIA coverage litigation that  special litigation committee investigation expense are covered under a D&O liability insurance policy. As I anticipated, the decision has proven to be controversial.

 

Two law firms that traditionally act as coverage counsel for D&O carriers recently released memoranda discussing the opinion. The Wiley Rein issued a brief memo (here) discussing the case and its holding. The Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge law firm released a longer memorandum (here) also discussing the opinion.

 

 

The Edwards Angell memo, written by my friend John McCarrick and his colleagues, Maurice Pesso and Peter de Boisblanc, is particularly interesting because opens by reviewing the justification for the insurers’ standard position that special litigation committee expenses are not covered under the typical D&O insurance policy.

 

 

 

 The Edwards Angell memo also includes a review of implications of and the likely consequences that flow from the decision. Among other things, the memo stresses that the decision did not hold that special litigation committee expenses will always be covered, but only under the facts presented. The memo also recites the difficulties and logical problems involved with characterizing the special litigation committee expenses as “defense costs” (including the likelihood that plaintiffs might use the characterization as a way of challenging the independence of the special litigation committee.).

 

 

 

The Edwards Angell memo concludes with the observation that

 

 

 

Unless and until the D&O insurers in MBIA press a successful appeal of this ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, D&O insurers should brace themselves for the likelihood that the MBIA ruling will be cited by policyholder counsel and brokers in an effort to significantly expand the scope of coverage for these kinds of legal expenses and costs, as well as to cover other fees and expenses that an insured can argue were incurred “in connection with” a covered D&O claim.

 

 

 

The memo provides an interesting presentation of the carrier perspective on the decision. Reading the memo, I wondered whether any policyholder-side coverage attorneys had written their own analyses of the decision from the perspective of insured companies. I hope that any readers aware of these alternative perspectives will please send them along to me. I will update this post with any additional materials that are sent to me about the case.

 

 

 

NAB Update: The closely watched National Bank of Australia case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari from the Second Circuit has now been scheduled for oral argument. According to a post on The 10b5-Daily (here), oral argument in the case, which will address the question of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of U.S. courts over foreign domiciled companies under the U.S. securities laws, is now set for March 29, 2010.

 

 

 

The 10b-5 Daily post also has a link to the Petitioners’ Brief., which argues that under the federal securities laws there are no extraterritorial limitations on the U.S. courts’ jurisdiction. Finally, the blog post also links to a National Law Journal article (here) written by Columbia Law School Professor John Coffee suggesting that, in light of various pending legislative proposals, Congress and the Supreme Court are on a “collision course” on the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction of the U.S. securities laws. Coffee concludes by suggesting that “a legal train wreck might result from opposing approaches to global class actions.”

 

 

 

Detailed background regarding the NAB case can be found here.

 

 

 

Another Belated Securities Lawsuit Filing: In prior posts (for example, here), I have noted the phenomenon that developed in the second-half of 2009 where plaintiffs’ lawyers were filing securities class action lawsuit complaints well after the proposed class period cutoff date. In a more recent post (here), I noted that at least one lawsuit first filed in January suggested that this trend has continued in the New Year.

 

 

 

Yet another case filed this week suggests that this trend is continuing. In a January 21, 2010 press release (here), plaintiffs’ lawyers announced that they had filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois against Motorola and certain of its directors and officers. The lawsuit relates to alleged misrepresentations about the company’s sales of its RAZR2 telephone handset. The complaint in the case can be found here.

 

 

 

Though the complaint was only just filed, the proposed class period cutoff date is January 22, 2008, a full one year and 364 days prior to the filing date, and just before the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations applicable to ’34 Act claims.

 

 

 

In his comments in connection with the recent release of Cornerstone’s year-end analysis of the securities class action lawsuits, Stanford Law School Professor Joseph Grundfest had a number of choice comments about these belated securities class action lawsuit filings, essentially suggesting that the plaintiffs are scraping the bottom of the barrel (my words, not his) to file these belated lawsuits because they had run out of more meritorious cases to file. Public statements by leading plaintiffs’ attorneys (refer, for example, here) suggest more neutrally that they are just getting around to filing cases that were “backburnered” while the lawyers were concentrating on getting the subprime and credit crisis cases on file.

 

 

 

But whatever the explanation may be for the belated case filings, it is a very distinct phenomenon that has appears to be continuing as move well into 2010.

 

 

 

New SEC Climate Change Disclosure Guidance Ahead?: In prior posts (here), I discussed the possibility that the SEC could issue guidelines for public companies’ disclosures about climate change related issues and exposures. As discussed on the FEI Financial Reporting Blog (here), the SEC has announced (here) that in a meeting on January 27, 2010, it will be considering “a recommendation to publish an interpretive release to provide guidance to public companies regarding the Commission’s current disclosure requirements concerning matters relating to climate change.”

 

 

 

As the FEI Financial Reporting Blog explains, an interpretive release of this type is designed to provide final guidance on existing disclosure requirements. The blog post speculates that the guidance could be effective immediately upon release.

 

 

 

Cheers: I have joined the Facebook group "A Glass of Wine Solves Everything" (here). Although I can’t account for every glass, I can testify that I have developed an appreciation for two very different reds, Oregon Pinot Noir and Argentine Malbec. Although I must admit that these preferences manifest one of my biggest problems, which is the mismatch between my tastes and my pocketbook. Somehow, I don’t  think I will be able to work my way a glass of wine at a time to the point where I can afford the Burgundys, Bordeauxs and Super Tuscans that I would really prefer to apply to solving my problems.

 

On January 21, 2010, the insurance information firm Advisen released the latest in a series of various observers’ year end analyses of 2009 securities litigation. Advisen’s year report can be accessed here. The Advisen report takes a somewhat different approach than the other reports, and reaches some strikingly different conclusions. Among other things, the Advisen report, perhaps by contrast to prior studies, concludes that "securities litigation" (as that term is used in the report) is actually increasing.

 

Warning! Terminology Matters!

In order to appreciate the Advisen report, it is absolutely indispensible to understand that the Advisen report uses its own unique terminology.

 

The most important thing to understand is that the Advisen report uses the term "securities litigation" to include a very broad range of kinds of lawsuits, including not just securities class action lawsuits, but also derivative actions, regulatory and enforcement actions, individual lawsuits, and collective actions in courts outside the United States.

 

The Advisen report also apparently includes within the category "securities lawsuits" claims alleging "common law torts, contract violations and breaches of fiduciary duties."

 

So the report uses the term "securities lawsuits" basically to mean any type of corporate or securities litigation (other than ERISA litigation), regardless even of whether or not the legal action was commenced in the U.S. or even apparently whether it alleges a violation of the securities laws. Because of the enormous variety of litigation encompassed within this category, throughout this post I have put the phrase "securities lawsuits" or "securities litigation" in quotation marks.

 

The Advisen report also uses the phrase "securities fraud" lawsuits as a subset of the larger group of "securities lawsuits." Contrary to what you might expect, however, the category of "securities fraud" lawsuits does not include class action lawsuits alleging securities fraud – securities fraud class action lawsuits are their own separate category ("SCAS"). Instead, the phrase is used to refer to regulatory and enforcement actions — yet somehow also includes private securities lawsuits that are not filed as class actions.

 

So the "securities fraud" lawsuit category includes lawsuits alleging fraud under the federal securities laws if the fraud is alleged by an individual but not if it is alleged on behalf of a class.　

The Report’s Conclusions

Perhaps the most important contribution that the Advisen report makes to understanding what happened from a litigation standpoint is its observation that "securities litigation" — as broadly defined in the report – actually increased in 2009 by comparison to prior years. Thus the report states that in 2009 the number of "securities lawsuits" actually grew to 910 suits, up 13% from 2008, which in turn was up 33% from 2007.

 

This observation is interesting and seemingly contrasts with conclusions reported in other studies suggesting that securities litigation declined in 2009. The difference in the analysis is due to the fact that the other studies concentrated exclusively on securities class action lawsuit filings in the United States, whereas the Advisen report is focused more broadly on corporate and securities litigation generally, and on litigation both inside and outside the United States.

 

It appears that for several years, securities class action lawsuits as a percentage of all "securities lawsuits" have been declining. As recently as 2004, securities class action lawsuit filings represented as much as half of all " securities lawsuits" filed, whereas in 2009 securities class action lawsuits represent only about one quarter of all "securities lawsuits."

 

The point here is an important one – that is, even if absolute numbers of securities class action lawsuit filings are declining, that does not mean that overall claims activity is decreasing. To the contrary, claims activity is actually increasing, while at the same time the mix of cases filed is changing. So if you were to focus only on securities class action lawsuit filing levels, you might mistakenly conclude that overall claims susceptibility is decreasing. It is not. It is increasing.

 

But even with respect to the narrower issue of securities class action lawsuit filings ("SCAS"), the Advisen report reflects a different perspective than other studies.

 

The Advisen report reports a relatively higher number for the number of securities class action lawsuit filings in 2009 (234) compared, for example, to the Cornerstone tally of 169 securities class action lawsuit filings in 2009, but the Advisen study also reports a much slighter decline in securities class action lawsuit filings from 2008 to 2009 (234 in 2009, 239 in 2009), than does the Cornerstone study (223 in 2008 to 169 in 2009).

 

Part of the explanation for this seemingly enormous difference is categorization. Thus, the Advisen study counts securities class action lawsuits that were filed in state courts (there apparently were 15 state court securities class action lawsuit filings in the fourth quarter of 2009 alone), but the Cornerstone study does not.

 

Part of the explanation for the difference is methodological. As stated in its report, Advisen "counts each company for which securities violations are alleged in a singled complaint as a separate suit." As far as I can tell, the Cornerstone study would count that single complaint only once regardless of the numbers of corporate defendants named in the complaint – that is certainly the approach I use in my own tallies. The Advisen approach will inevitably lead to higher numbers than are reported in some other studies.

 

Part of the explanation for the difference is simply timing. The Advisen report includes filings through December 31, 2009, whereas the Cornerstone report only counts filings through December 21, 2009.

 

Among other things, the Advisen report states that the aggregate losses claimed in the "securities lawsuits" filed in 2009 was $1.3 trillion, compared to $1.2 trillion in 2008. The average losses per "securities lawsuit" were $9.8 billion in 2009, compared to $6.4 billion in 2008, which may be interpreted to suggest the possibility of "record payouts" for the securities lawsuits filed in 2009.

 

The report also contains an extensive discussion of the growing significance of "securities lawsuits" against non-U.S. companies. According to the study, there were 117 "securities lawsuits," or 13 percent of the total, filed against non-U.S. companies in 2009, including 46 "large cases" filed in non-U.S. courts. (The report does not specify what constitutes a "large case.") However, the report also notes that one subset of these "securities lawsuits" against non-U.S. companies, that is, the filings in the subcategory of "collective actions" were almost entirely concentrated in the first quarter and largely driven by Ponzi scheme cases.

 

The Advisen report is quite extensive and contains a wealth of information, and is worth reading at length and in full (albeit very carefully). But of all the observations contained in the report, by far the most important one is that even if securities class action lawsuit filings may have declined, overall "securities litigation" has not decreased – in fact, in 2009, "securities litigation," as that term is used in the Advisen report, increased materially and for the second consecutive year.

 

Securities Litigation Webinar: On Friday January 22, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. EST, I will be participating in a free one-hour "Review of Securities Litigation 2009 and Expert Views for the Year Ahead." The other panelists include Travelers’s Mark Lamendola, Beecher Carlson’s Jeff Lattmann, and Advisen’s Dave Bradford. Advisen’s Jim Blinn will moderate the panel. You can register for the webinar here.

 

In an earlier post (here), I wrote about a December 30, 2009 ruling in the MBIA coverage litigation that special litigation committee investigation expenses were covered under a D&O liability insurance policy. As I anticipated, the decision has proven to be controversial.

 

Two law firms that traditionally act as coverage counsel for D&O carriers recently released memoranda discussing the opinion. The Wiley Rein issued a brief memo (here) discussing the case and its holding. The Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge law firm released a longer memorandum (here) also discussing the opinion.

 

The Edwards Angell memo, written by my friend John McCarrick and his colleagues, Maurice Pesso and Peter de Boisblanc, is particularly interesting because opens by reviewing the justification for the insurers’ standard position that special litigation committee expenses are not covered under the typical D&O insurance policy.

 

The Edwards Angell memo also includes a review of implications of and the likely consequences that flow from the decision. Among other things, the memo stresses that the decision did not hold that special litigation committee expenses will always be covered, but only under the facts presented. The memo also recites the difficulties and logical problems involved with characterizing the special litigation committee expenses as "defense costs" (including the likelihood that plaintiffs might use the characterization as a way of challenging the independence of the special litigation committee.).

 

The Edwards Angell memo concludes with this observation:

　

Unless and until the D&O insurers in MBIA press a successful appeal of this ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, D&O insurers should brace themselves for the likelihood that the MBIA ruling will be cited by policyholder counsel and brokers in an effort to significantly expand the scope of coverage for these kinds of legal expenses and costs, as well as to cover other fees and expenses that an insured can argue were incurred "in connection with" a covered D&O claim.

 

The memo provides an interesting presentation of the carrier perspective on the decision. Reading the memo, I wondered whether any policyholder-side coverage attorneys had written their own analyses of the decision from the perspective of insured companies. I hope that any readers aware of these alternative perspectives will please send them along to me. I will update this post with any additional materials that are sent to me about the case.

 

One final note on a related subject — the Wilmer Hale law firm has an interesting memo about recent developments in shareholder derivative litigation (here), which, among other things, discusses court’s’ increased scrutiny of special litigation committees, particularly with respect to the  question whether or not the committees are in fact independent.

　

NAB Update: The closely watched National Bank of Australia case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari from the Second Circuit has now been scheduled for oral argument. According to a post on The 10b5-Daily (here), oral argument in the case, which will address the question of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of U.S. courts over foreign domiciled companies under the U.S. securities laws, is now set for March 29, 2010.

　

The 10b-5 Daily post also has a link to the Petitioners’ Brief., which argues that under the federal securities laws there are no extraterritorial limitations on the U.S. courts’ jurisdiction. Finally, the blog post also links to a National Law Journal article (here) written by Columbia Law School Professor John Coffee suggesting that, in light of various pending legislative proposals, Congress and the Supreme Court are on a "collision course" on the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction of the U.S. securities laws. Coffee concludes by suggesting that "a legal train wreck might result from opposing approaches to global class actions."

　

Detailed background regarding the NAB case can be found here.

　

Another Belated Securities Lawsuit Filing: In prior posts (for example, here), I have noted the phenomenon that developed in the second-half of 2009 where plaintiffs’ lawyers were filing securities class action lawsuit complaints well after the proposed class period cutoff date. In a more recent post (here), I noted that at least one lawsuit first filed in January suggested that this trend has continued in the New Year.

 

Yet another case filed this week suggests that this trend is continuing. In a January 21, 2010 press release (here), plaintiffs’ lawyers announced that they had filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois against Motorola and certain of its directors and officers. The lawsuit relates to alleged misrepresentations about the company’s sales of its RAZR2 telephone handset. The complaint in the case can be found here.

 

Though the complaint was only just filed, the proposed class period cutoff date is January 22, 2008, a full one year and 364 days prior to the filing date, and just before the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations applicable to ’34 Act claims.

 

In his comments in connection with the recent release of Cornerstone’s year-end analysis of the securities class action lawsuits, Stanford Law School Professor Joseph Grundfest had a number of choice comments about these belated securities class action lawsuit filings, essentially suggesting that the plaintiffs are scraping the bottom of the barrel (my words, not his) to file these belated lawsuits because they had run out of more meritorious cases to file. Public statements by leading plaintiffs’ attorneys (refer, for example, here) suggest more neutrally that they are just getting around to filing cases that were "backburnered" while the lawyers were concentrating on getting the subprime and credit crisis cases on file.

 

But whatever the explanation may be for the belated case filings, it is a very distinct phenomenon that has appears to be continuing as move well into 2010.

　

New SEC Climate Change Disclosure Guidance Ahead?: In prior posts (here), I discussed the possibility that the SEC could issue guidelines for public companies’ disclosures about climate change related issues and exposures. As discussed on the FEI Financial Reporting Blog (here), the SEC has announced (here) that in a meeting on January 27, 2010, it will be considering "a recommendation to publish an interpretive release to provide guidance to public companies regarding the Commission’s current disclosure requirements concerning matters relating to climate change."

　

As the FEI Financial Reporting Blog explains, an interpretive release of this type is designed to provide final guidance on existing disclosure requirements. The blog post speculates that the guidance could be effective immediately upon release.

 

Cheers: I have joined the Facebook group "A Glass of Wine Solves Everything." (here). In vino veritas, dude. I recently have developed an affinity for two very different kinds of red, Oregon Pinot Noir and Argentine Malbec — in part because one of the problems I have to solve is that I can’t afford the Burgundys, Bordeauxs and Super Tuscans I would prefer. In my next life, my blog will be about wine.

 

Longtime readers know  I have frequently argued that claims related to the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act are a growing source of liability exposure for companies and their senior officials, a stand that has made me the subject of occasional derisive comments. One reader recently suggested to me that I am "obsessive" about the topic. But after yesterday’s massive indictment of 22 individuals as a result of an FBI sting — the DoJ’s largest FCPA-related investigative action ever — I think my occasional critics will have to agree that enforcement activities really do represent a significant corporate exposure that must be taken very seriously.

 

As reflected in the Department of Justice’s January 19, 2010 press release (here), the 22 individuals were indicted for engaging in schemes to bribe foreign government officials. The indictments are the result of an FBI undercover operation that focused on allegations of foreign bribery in the military and law enforcement products industries.

 

The 16 separate indictments can be found here. Only individuals are named in the indictments; no companies have been named. The individuals worked for companies in the U.S, the U.K and Israel. All but one of the individuals was arrested while attending an industry convention in Las Vegas.

 

According to the DoJ’s press release, the indictments represent "the largest single investigation and prosecution against individuals in the DoJ’s enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act." The press release also quotes the Assistant Attorney General as saying that the "ongoing investigation" is "the first large-scale use of undercover law enforcement techniques to uncover FCPA violations."

 

If you have any doubts about the government’s willingness to commit resources to enforce the FCPA, you should know that, as part of this investigation, 150 FBI agents executed 14 search warrants in at least twelve locations around the country.

 

The investigation also reflects a frequently common aspect of these kinds of enforcement actions – that is, crossborder cooperation between investigative agencies. Specifically, in this case, the City of London’s police executed seven search warrants in connection with their own investigation of the foreign bribery conduct that formed the basis of the indictments.

 

The DoJ’s press release describers how the FBI’s sting operation worked:

 

the defendants allegedly agreed to pay a 20 percent "commission" to a sales agent who the defendants believed represented the minister of defense for a country in Africa in order to win a portion of a $15 million deal to outfit the country’s presidential guard.  In reality, the "sales agent" was an undercover FBI agent. The defendants were told that half of that "commission" would be paid directly to the minister of defense. The defendants allegedly agreed to create two price quotations in connection with the deals, with one quote representing the true cost of the goods and the second quote representing the true cost, plus the 20 percent "commission." The defendants also allegedly agreed to engage in a small "test" deal to show the minister of defense that he would personally receive the 10 percent bribe.　

 

The indictments were returned on December 11, 2009 by a grand jury sitting the District of Columbia and were unsealed yesterday.

 

The indictments allege that the individuals conspired to violate the FCPA, conspired to engage in money laundering, and engaged in substantive violations of the FCPA.

 

The maximum prison sentence for the conspiracy count and for each FCPA count is five years. The maximum sentence for the money laundering conspiracy charge is 20 years in prison. The indictments also seek criminal forfeiture of the defendants’ ill gotten gains.

 

The FCPA Blog has a summary regarding the indictments here. The FCPA Professor Blog also has a post about the indictments here.

 

According to statements quoted in a January 19, 2010 Bloomberg article (here), the investigation has been underway for 2 ½ years, and "is continuing." The official quoted in the article declined to say whether there would be further indictments as a result of this investigation. However, the official noted that there are over 140 open investigations into violations of the bribery laws and he added that ""I can assure you there will be more charges as a result of some of those investigations."

 

The involvement of criminal charges against so many individual defendants raises many questions, including whether or to what extent D&O insurance might respond in these circumstances. The issue will of course depend to a large extent on the precise wording of the policies involved. The criminal forfeitures would not in any event be covered under any policy. However many policies include within their definition of claim the filing of criminal charges in an indictment, which at least for policies with that language might hold open the possibility that the policies might provide at least defense cost coverage.

 

Whether any specific policy would provide coverage for criminal defense expenses will depend in large part on the wordings of other policy provisions, including in particular any potentially relevant policy exclusions. Though they do not appear in many contemporary policies, some older policy forms contain certain exclusions that (if not removed by endorsement) could potentially operate to preclude coverage for FCPA-related criminal defense expenses.

 

But as I have frequently pointed out, the greatest relevance of the D&O policy in connection with bribery related legal proceedings may be in connection with any follow-on civil action that may arise. The FCPA itself does not contain a private right of action, but investors and others sometimes raise claims that company’s senior officials did not take appropriate steps to protect against the improper conduct, or that the company misrepresented its financial condition.

 

The sheer magnitude of this most recent FCPA criminal enforcement action, taken together with the existence of 140 open FCPA-related investigations and the likelihood of further enforcement actions ahead, underscores the seriousness of FCPA exposures for senior company officials. And as highlighted by my brief discussion above of the way the D&O policy may respond in connection with FCPA claims, it is critically (and increasingly) important that these issues are taken into account at the time the D&O policy is formed.

 

Year-End Securities Litigation Review Webinar: On January 22, 2010 at 11 am EST, I will be participating in a webinar sponsored by Advisen entitled "Review of Securities Litigation 2009 and Expert Views for the Year Ahead." Joining me for the hour-long webinar will be Jeffrey Lattman of Beecher Carlson and Mark Lamendola of Travelers, as well as David Bradford and Jim Blinn of Advisen. You can register for the webinar here.

 

RiskMetrics has issued its year-end 2009 scorecard of the Top 100 securities class action lawsuit settlements. The list, which is updated quarterly, can be accessed on the Securities Litigation Watch blog (here). The details in this very interesting tabulation support a number of interesting observations, discussed below.

 

The year-end Top 100 tally reflects the incorporation of 15 new settlements added to the list during 2009. However, because RiskMetrics identifies a specific case’s Settlement Year as "the year in which the hearing to grant final approval of the settlement or most recent partial settlement occurred," there were several high-profile settlements entered late in 2009 that are not, because they are not yet final, reflected in the most recent update, including the $225 million Comverse Technology settlement (about which refer here) and the $160.5 million Broadcom settlement (here).

 

The settlements added to the list during 2009 include the tenth largest all-time settlement, in the form of the $925 million UnitedHealth Group settlement (refer here and here). Among the all-time top 25 settlements are several other settlements added to the list in 2009, including the $586 million IPO Securities Litigation settlement (refer here), the $554 million HealthSouth settlement (refer here), the $475 Merrill Lynch settlement (refer here), the $445 million Qwest Communications settlement (refer here), and the $400 million Marsh & McLennan settlement (here).

 

The price of admission to the Top 100 list is steep. Taking into account the late-year Comverse Technology and Broadcom settlements, which presumably will be added to the list during 2010, future settlements will have to excess $80 million to crack the Top 100. And to break into the top 25, a settlement will have to exceed $400 million. (It should not be overlooked that there have been 25 settlements of $400 million or greater, which is a staggering fact all by itself.)

 

The Securities Litigation Watch blog also notes that the price of admission to the Top 100 list has doubled since the end of 2005; at year-end 2005, the 100th largest settlement on the list was in the amount of $39 million. By year-end 2009, the 100th largest settlement was $79.75 million.

 

Settlements related to options backdating securities cases are well-represented among the Top 100 settlements, including number 10 all-time, the UnitedHealth Group options backdating securities lawsuit settlement. Other Top 100 options backdating settlements include Brocade Communications Systems ($160 million) and Mercury Interactive ($117.5 million). The yet to be added Comverse Technology ($225 mm) and Broadcom settlements ($160.5 mm) also rank among the top all-time settlements. The separate $118 million Broadcom options backdating-related derivative lawsuit settlement, though not relevant to this list because it did not arise in a securities class action suit, is nevertheless noteworthy in this connection.

 

The Top 100 settlements also include two subprime-related securities class action settlements, the $475 million Merrill Lynch settlement and the $150 million Merrill Lynch bondholder settlement. Call it a hunch, but I am guessing that before all is said and done with the subprime and credit crisis-related securities lawsuits, there will be a lot more of those cases on the Top 100 settlements list.

 

The Top 100 settlements involve cases in 38 different federal district courts, with the largest number in the Southern District of New York (25). Other districts with significant numbers of settlements include the District of New Jersey (8), the Northern District of California (7), the Central District of California (6), and the Southern District of Texas (5).

 

Among the plaintiffs’ firms, the law firm with the highest number of Top 100 securities class action settlements is the Milberg firm (in its various manifestations), with 29, followed by the Bernstein Litowitz firm, with 26 and the Coughlin Stoia firm, in its various forms, with 14.

 

Of the Top 100 securities class action settlements, over two-thirds (68) were finalized in the most recent five year period between 2005 and 2009. The bar graph on page 5 of the report, which depicts the definite upward trend in the more recent years, strongly communicates the increasing severity of securities class action claims.

 

The inevitable implication of this inexorably increasing claims severity is that the price of poker is going up. This fact, taken together with the dramatic increases in the costs associated with defending securities suits, has important implications for D&O insurance limits selection. Simply put, commonplace notions about limits adequacy that have developed over time may have gone completely out of date in the most recent years.

 

The significant recent increase in the number of mega settlements suggests that the answer to the question "How much insurance is enough" may be categorically greater than even a short time ago. The inevitable ratchet effect from these settlement trends, creating ever greater measures of what "cases like this settle for," also suggests that these numbers will not be going back down either.

 

In my year-end analysis of the 2009 securities class action lawsuit filings, I noted a number of filing trends that developed in the second half of the year, including the incidence of new filings against leveraged Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) and the surprising numbers of belated securities suit filings where the filing date came well after the proposed class period cut-off date. If the lawsuit filings in the first two weeks of January are any indication, these trends have continued into the New Year.

 

First, this past week, plaintiffs’ lawyers launched two new lawsuits on behalf of leveraged ETF fund investors, the UltraBasic Materials ProShares Fund (refer here) and the Direxion Energy Bear 3X Shares Fund (refer here). My prior post discussing the phenomenon of securities class action lawsuits and including a link to a running list of the ETF-related suits can be found here. I have updated the list to include these most recently filed suits.

 

Second, in the first 2010 instance of the belated lawsuit filing phenomenon, on January 15, 2010, plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a securities class action lawsuit against Stryker Corporation and certain of its officers and executives. The plaintiffs’ lawyers’ January 15 press release about the case can be found here.

 

The class period cut-off proposed in the Stryker complaint is November 13, 2008, well over a year before the lawsuit was filed.

 

We may have entered a new calendar year, but at least a couple of last year’s securities suit filing trends appear to have carried over from year-end, at least so far.

 

Galleon Out as Lead Plaintiff: Among the stranger circumstances surrounding the Galleon Management insider trading scandal is the fact that just two weeks before the scandal surfaced Galleon had been reaffirmed as lead plaintiff in the Herley Industries securities class action lawsuit. My prior post discussing these circumstances can be found here.

 

However, according to a January 15, 2010 Bloomberg article (here) written by Thom Weidlich, Galleon has now dropped out as lead plaintiff in the case.

 

In a January 15, 2010 order (here), Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Juan R. Sanchez permitted Galleon to withdraw as lead plaintiff. According to the Bloomberg article, Galleon’s counsel had advised the court that it had "become clear that the now-defunct Galleon can no longer continue in this role."

 

Delaware Chancery Court Tosses Bribery Follow-On Civil Suit: In numerous prior posts (most recently here), I have noted as along of the increasing number of antibribery enforcement actions has come the increasing incidence of follow-on civil litigation in the wake of the bribery enforcement action.

 

As reflected in a January 15, 2010 post on The FCPA Blog (here), a recent Delaware Chancery Court decision dismissing a case involving Dow Chemical contains language that may be important in future bribery enforcement follow-on civil actions.

 

The Dow suit arose after the Kuwaiti parliament acted to rescind the purchase of certain Dow assets (in a transaction known as K-Dow) based on the suspicion of profiteering and improper commissions paid to the Kuwaiti state owned enterprise that was the actual buyer. The plaintiffs filed suit in Delaware alleging that the Dow board "failed to prevent bribery in connection with the K-Dow transaction."

 

In a January 11, 2010 opinion (here), Chancellor William B. Chandler III dismissed the action on the grounds that the plaintiffs "do not allege that the board knew about or had reason to suspect bribery."

 

The FCPA Blog points out that in a footnote "that may have important consequences beyond this case," the court said that Dow’s compliance program was evidence that the board had met its fiduciary duty to prevent overseas bribery. The Chancery Court specifically referenced the company’s Code of Ethics prohibiting any unethical payments to third parties. The FCPA Blog concludes that this case provides "a powerful reason for directors and officers to insist on robust antibribery compliance programs that include regular reports back to the board."　

　

The financial relationship between plaintiffs’ securities firms and the clients they represent has long been questioned, and not only because of the kinds of improper kickback payments for which Bill Lerach and Mel Weiss, among others, wound up in jail. Another practice that has raised recurring concerns is what is referred to as "pay-to-play" – which in this context refers to the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ payment of political contributions to elected officials in charge of public pension funds, supposedly in exchange for the lawyers’ selection as the funds’ class action counsel.

 

But while these kinds of concerns are frequently raised, a preliminary question is often overlooked – that is, regardless of questions about the effect the practice might have on the counsel selection process, are the plaintiffs’ lawyers in fact making political donations to elected officials who have authority over public funds?

 

That is the question examined in a recent New York University Law Review article by Drew T. Johnson-Skinner entitled "Paying to Play in Securities Class Actions: A Look at Lawyer’s Campaign Contributions" (here). The article’s author notes that while alleged pay-to-play practices are often discussed, and have even been the subject of various reform proposals, many commentators have simply "skipped" the "first stage of the analysis," which is the question "whether law firms are contributing to investment funds’ leadership at all."

 

In order to analyze the question, the article’s author looked at all 1076 securities class action lawsuits that were filed from 2002 to 2006, and then narrowed the data set to the 74 cases where "the filing lead plaintiff was an institutional investor with at least one state-level elected official or a person appointed by a state-level elected official, on its controlling board."

 

The author then looked at whether the law firms selected as counsel in each of the 74 cases had made campaign contributions to any elected officials affiliated with the funds that selected the firm. Reviewing publicly available information, the author found that "in a majority of cases where pay-to-play was possible, at least one law firm made a political contribution to an elected official with a lead plaintiff pension fund in the case."

 

The author concluded that his analysis "confirms that plaintiffs’ law firms are contributing to the pension funds that select them as counsel," and that "campaign contributions that could be the basis of paying-to-play are present across a broad range of cases." Moreover, the amount of money contributed by firms is also "significant."

 

However, the author cautioned that his research "does not explain why firms contribute to pension funds or the role that campaign contributions actually play in funds’ counsel-selection decisions." Rather, the author suggests that the value of his research is that it rules out any possible contention, in response to pay to play allegations, that law firms are not contributing to pension funds. In fact, they are.

 

While the law review article’s author declined to question whether the plaintiffs’ law firms’ political contributions are a form of pay-to-play, a separate legal study suggests at a minimum that the existence of political contributions may affect the attorneys’ fees that a public pension fund may pay.

 

A December 22, 2009 article (here) by New York University law professor Stephen Choi, Drew T. Johnson-Skinner, and University of Michigan law professor Adam Pritchard suggests that "state pension funds generally pay lower attorneys’ fees when they serve as lead plaintiffs in securities class actions than do individual investors serving in that capacity," but that when the authors controlled "for campaign contributions made to officials with influence over state pension fund" the differential disappears. Thus, the authors conclude, pay to play "appears to increase agency costs borne by shareholders in securities class actions."

 

In any event, questions continue to arise whether plaintiffs’ lawyers campaign contributions to officials that control public pension funds represents a form of improper influence.

 

For example, in connection with the class certification motion in the Countrywide subprime-related securities class action lawsuit, the Defendants had argued that the lead counsel in the case had made a series of campaign contributions to the New York State Comptroller, the sole trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, one of the lead plaintiffs in the case. (The other lead plaintiff group is the New York City Pension Funds.) The various contributions for the lawyers at the firm ranged in amount from $6,200 to $9,600, all made within four days’ time, after the law firm had been selected as lead counsel. The payments totaled "precisely $50,000."

 

In her December 9, 2009 order certifying the class (here), Central District of California Judge Mariana Pfaelzer noted that any suspicion of pay-to-play activity "would be relevant to attorney-class conflicts and the willingness of [the State Fund] to monitor its attorneys and make decisions for the benefit of the class rather than its attorneys," but she found that any such suspicion "may be somewhat speculative" in the Countywide case.

 

Judge Pfaelzer noted as a preliminary matter that "attorneys are free to exercise their right to donate to politicians who support their views" and that the defendants "do not allege that the donations violated any law." She also noted that "though not exactly correlative," lawyers and parties on the defense side have "similar political-donation freedom."

 

Perhaps more importantly, in rejecting the defendants’ objections, Judge Pfaelzer found that the lead plaintiffs’ firm had been retained for the case "after career staff recommended" the firm, following "reasonable ethics protocols" and based on the law firm’s "independent investigation of the case."

 

A December 10, 2009 WSJ.com Law Blog post about Judge Pfaelzer’s ruling can be found here.

 

The suggestion of similar concerns surfaced more recently in connection with the composition of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which commenced its high profile investigation of the financial crisis on Wednesday. As detailed in a January 13, 2010 Wall Street Journal article (here), one of the individuals on the ten-member commission is a lawyer with the Coughlin Stoia law firm. In addition, a senior commission staffer is on leave as a partner in the Coughlin Stoia law firm.

 

The Journal article reports that the commission chairman, Phil Angelides, received $250,000 in contributions from the law firm during his 2006 campaign for governor. The article quotes a representative of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform as saying that the appointment of plaintiffs’ class action attorney to the commission and its staff "raises a very real concern as to whether they will use the important work of the commission ultimately to feather their own nest." A law professor is also quoted as saying that the ties to the law firm could hurt the commission, noting that "the commission must maintain its distance from the perception that this is all a ‘gotcha’ exercise."

 

These kinds of concerns about plaintiffs’ law firms’ political contributions at a minimum draw upon a suggestion of at least the appearance of impropriety. As one way to try to avert this appearance, Florida has instituted a public process, conducted by its State Board of Administration, which oversees the state employee pension funds, to determine which firms will represent the Board in future securities class action lawsuits.

 

According to Allison Frankel’s December 14, 2009 AmLaw Litigation Daily article (here), 31 firms submitted proposals, from which a field of 12 candidates was selected. In a January 12, 2010 update (here), Frankel reported on the outcome of the process and the names of the five law firms finally selected. Her January 12 article also reports on the many "interesting tidbits" revealed in the law firms’ public submissions, including the firms’ hourly rates and the portfolio monitoring services the firms provide for many public pension funds.

 

Though the Florida process has all the virtues of transparency, the process itself did not eliminate the phenomenon of plaintiff’s lawyers’ campaign contributions to influential public officials. According to a December 12, 2009 St. Petersburg Times article (here), in the preceding 14 months, "lawyers and others tied to the firms interested in representing the SBA have spent at least $850,000 on Florida politics." The article quoted critics who suggested that "Florida’s short list mirrors the entrenched, pay-to-play culture between public pension funds and prominent class-action law firms."

 

In other words, as the law review article cited above demonstrates, the plaintiff’s law firms are in fact making political contributions to elected officials who are in a position to influence the counsel selection process. Whether or not the contribution are made for the purpose of influencing the counsel-selection process and whether the process is in fact influenced may be questions about which there may be a diversity of views; the plaintiffs’ lawyers are quick to defend their actions.

 

But I wonder whether this is going to be one of those kinds of issues that is out there and frequently noted, but then suddenly blows up when some very specific development moves it to the front burner. This is the kind of issue that could get people very excited if a certain combination of facts and circumstance should come to light. Even absent some dramatic revelation, the questions will continue, simply because of the way it looks.

 

Indeed, given the shadow it inevitably casts over plaintiffs’ attorneys and their motivations, you do wonder why they continue these practices. More cynical minds might suggest that it is obvious why the plaintiffs lawyers don’t stop.

 

　

Since the outset of the subprime securities class action litigation wave I have tried to keep track both of the lawsuits as they are filed (refer here) and on the outcome of the cases as they are resolved, including in particular the outcome of the defendants’ motions to dismiss (refer here). But these tabulations alone don’t tell you who is winning and who is losing, or why.

 

Those questions are the subject of a thorough and interesting December 30, 2009 Bloomberg.com article by Jon Eisenberg of the Skadden Arps law firm entitled "Subprime Securities Class Action Decisions: Who’s Winning, Who’s Losing and Why?" (here).

 

Eisenberg looks at dismissal motion rulings in 16 of the cases that have reached the dismissal motions stage. (Eisenberg explains that he narrowed the pool of decisions he reviewed from the universe of all subprime and credit crisis-related dismissal motion rulings in order "to focus exclusively on subprime cases…in which plaintiffs have alleged that defendants misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the quality of subprime loans that the defendant company was making or financing or rating.")

 

He found that out of the 16 decisions, plaintiffs’ complaints survived motions to dismiss in ten cases and failed to survive in six cases.

 

Eisenberg has a number of observations about these dismissal motion rulings. First, he noted that all seven cases that asserted claims under Sections 11 and 12 (a)(2) of the Securities Act survived motions to dismiss. Indeed, even in cases in which ’33 Act claims were combined with claims under Section 10(b) of the ’34 Act, the Section 10(b) claims survived as well. By contrast, in the nine decisions involving standalone Section 10(b) claims, the dismissal motions were denied in only three cases.

 

Although the defendants asserted a number of defenses in their dismissal motions, scienter "turns out to be the perfect predictor of outcomes across all 16 cases." If plaintiffs were not relying on claims that required pleading scienter (i.e., the ’33 Act claims) or convinced the court that the scienter allegations were sufficient, they survived the motion to dismiss. And in the Section 10(b) cases in which the plaintiffs met the standard for pleading scienter, "they also convinced the court to reject the merits of the other defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss."

 

Plaintiffs were successful in pleading scienter when relying on statements by confidential witnesses that "allegedly detail executives’ knowledge of facts inconsistent with public statement" and when relying on "reliable external sources of information," such as bankruptcy examiner’s report, as well as when relying on "market events linked with questionable internal practices and representations fundamentally at odds with a company’s core business."

 

Plaintiffs were unsuccessful in pleading scienter when the factual allegations on which the plaintiffs are relying might "easily coincide with non-fraudulent misstatements or omissions." For example allegations such as senior level positions, certifications under Sarbanes-Oxley, resignations of senior executives, normal selling by insiders, GAAP violations, restatements and even decisions by auditors to not continue as auditors were found not to create a strong inference of scienter.

 

Eisenberg found further that massive complaints do not necessarily establish scienter and often backfire on plaintiffs. Similarly, though many complaints seek to rely on confidential witnesses, confidential witness statements "do not ensure that a complaint will survive." Courts have dismissed fraud claims where "the confidential witness statements failed to show what the executives knew or how the confidential witnesses knew what the executives knew."

 

Eisenberg concludes his article with an analysis of the problem of "hindsight bias" – the tendency for people with knowledge of an outcome to exaggerate the extent to which they believe the outcome should have been predicted. The risk of hindsight bias in the subprime cases exists because of the competing narratives; that is, the plaintiffs argue that defendants were reckless in not seeing what was coming and adjusting their business practices accordingly, and defendants argue that they, along with the entire rest of the global financial marketplace, were blindsided by events "so severe, unexpected and unprecedented" that no one saw them coming.

 

"The good news for defendants," Eisenberg concludes is that at least in cases involving standalone Section 10(b) cases, "defendants’ narrative is often persuasive and courts have granted motions to dismiss because they are not convinced that defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, of the calamity that lay ahead."

 

Very special thanks to Jon Eisenberg for providing me with a copy of his article.

 

My own status report, as of September 2009, on the subprime and credit crisis-related securities lawsuits can be found here.

 

The FDIC has picked up where it left off at the end of 2009, with its first bank closure of the New Year. On Friday, January 8, 2010, the FDIC took control of Horizon Bank of Bellingham, Washington, for the first bank closure of 2010. While the FDIC’s continuation of its regulatory actions regarding troubled banks seems likely in the near term, what remains to be seen is whether the FDIC’s actions will include litigation against the former directors and officers of the failed banks.

 

Though the FDIC has yet to launch D&O litigation, the lawsuits may be just ahead. The FDIC is taking a series of steps clearly designed to prepare for litigation.

 

First, as reported in a January 10, 2010 article in FinCri Advisor (here), the FDIC is "subpoenaing bank officials and workers, hoping to gather evidence to use in potential litigation." By way of illustration, a recent motion filed by bank officials in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings involving Haven Trust Bancorp, the holding company for a Duluth, Georgia bank that failed in December 2008, states that certain of the officials "received subpoenas…issued by counsel to the [FDIC] regarding the FDIC’s investigation of certain matters relating to the failure of Haven Trust Bank." (The former officials’ motion sought access to the D&O insurance policy proceeds in order for the officials to be able to defend themselves.)

 

Second, as I noted in a prior post, the FDIC is sending civil demand letters to former directors and officers of failed banks. According to the FinCri Advisor article, former directors in Florida, California, Illinois, Texas and Georgia have received FDIC claims letters. According to a commentator in the article, one obvious trigger for a demand letter is the approaching expiration date of the D&O insurance policy.

 

An example of one of these demand letters is described in a January 8, 2010 Atlanta Business Chronicle article, here (registration required). The article describes a September 28, 2009 letter sent to the D&O liability insurer for Georgian Bank, an Atlanta bank that the FDIC closed on September 25, 2009. According to the article, the letter details the potential claims the FDIC might make against the bank’s former directors and officers, including allegations of "unsafe and unsound banking practices."

 

Industry experts quoted in the Atlanta Business Chronicle article say that "such letters likely have been filed with insurers by all 30 banks that have failed in Georgia since August 2008."

 

But while the FDIC is clearly pursing investigations and taking steps to try to preserve the right to try to recover D&O insurance proceeds, it "has not filed any D&O lawsuits in connection with the bank failures since the crisis began in 2008," according to an FDIC spokesman quoted in the article.

 

According to the FinCri Advisor article, "the FDIC spends about a year conducting an investigation into a failed bank before deciding whether it can pursue a claim against former directors and officers."

 

Because of the FDIC’s many continuing investigations, 2010, according to an attorney quoted in the FinCri Advisor article, "will be the year of investigation and tolling agreements." One reason for the FDIC to proceed carefully is that it doesn’t want to push cases early that may set bad precedents, which could "doom subsequent cases."

 

But though the FDIC is now proceeding cautiously, when the litigation ultimately comes, there is likely to be a lot of it. The FinCri Advisor article quotes the FDIC’s former head of litigation as saying that "about half" of the bank failures will "see some director litigation." Before all is said and done, the coming litigation "could rival the litigation that occurred in the 80s and 90s as a result of the many thrift failures."

 

Special thanks to loyal reader Henry Turner for providing me with a copy of the Haven Trust pleading and the Atlanta Business Chronicle article.

 

Another Perspective: As a continuation of my early post in which I linked to a variety of Top Ten lists, I note here the recent post on the Corporate Disclosure Alert blog (written by my law school classmate and investor advocate, Sanford Lewis) about "10 Questions of Risk Management for the New Decade" (here). Lewis contends that "far more must be done to turn the patchwork of risk management approaches into viable public policy and corporate governance solutions." The list of issues that Lewis contends should be addressed is interesting and provocative.

 

We Aren’t What We Watch – Are We?: On New Year’s Day, my hyperkinetic eldest daughter — collegiate swimmer, rugby player – who rarely sits still long enough to watch TV, announced "I think I’ll watch some college football" and she plopped herself down beside me on the couch. Unfortunately for the nascent possibility of a little father-daughter bonding, the game broadcast at that moment was in the middle of the Flomax halftime report, and the commercial had just reached the point where it advised that Flomax’s adverse side effect may include a "reduction in semen."

 

As she was leaving the room, my daughter offered the observation that at least on TV college football is clearly meant for a "different demographic."

 

Indeed. But what exactly is the intended demographic?

 

The commercials themselves suggest that the target audience consists of people who are basically worried. They are not only worried just because they have to go pee all the time. They are worried about their credit scores. They are worried that their nest eggs have shrunk. They are worried about figuring out their taxes. They are worried because their computers are too slow and because their 3G network’s coverage areas are too small.

 

So many things to worry about. Too bad for you if all you want to do is watch a little football.

 

But in the midst of all of this apprehension and fear, there is cause for hope. For the overweight, for example, Taco Bell would like to communicate the optimistic message that you can lose weight by eating fast food. (I am not making this up.)

 

If playing time alone is any measure, the most important message for our society seems to be that Taco Bell now has a five-layer burrito for 89 cents. For those of you thinking, "No Way!" — you have to understand that they are not offering to pay you 89 cents to eat that thing. They are expecting you to pay them. Seriously. As my son said, "Is that supposed to be food?"

 

Perhaps (I can hope optimistically) we are all in the wrong demographic. How much more fortunate are the viewers of the UK premier league soccer games. Since the game clock never stops, there are no commercial interruptions – which obviously is the reason that soccer has never been allowed to catch on commercially in the U.S. Of course, the soccer games do have halftimes, which does hold open the theoretical possibility for Flomax halftime reports.