In a landmark development for private securities litigation in Canada, a Justice of the Ontario Superior Court has ruled that a proposed securities suit against IMAX under Ontario’s new statutory provisions allowing private securities litigation may proceed. The court separately certified a global class of IMAX investors on whose behalf the case will now proceed.

 

According to a December 14, 2009 National Post article (here), Ontario Superior Court Justice Katherine van Rensberg, in two separate orders, granted the plaintiffs leave to bring the case and certified the action as a class suit, allowing plaintiffs to proceed with their case against several IMAX directors and officers over disclosures in the company’s 2005 financial statements. Justice van Rensberg’s December 14, 2009 opinion granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave can be found here. Her December 14, 2009 opinion granting the plaintiff’s motion for class certification can be found here.

 

 

Justice van Rensberg’s decisions are, according to the Post article “groundbreaking” because the case is the first to test recent revisions to the Ontario Securities Act that potentially made it easier for disappointed investors to bring actions for civil liability against directors and officers of public companies for misrepresentations in public disclosure documents. 

 

 

These statutory provisions, which became effective in December 2005,  were first passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in legislation now referred to simply as Bill 198, which is codified as Section XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act. The provisions provide for the liability of certain specified individuals for misrepresentations in companies’ public disclosure documents.

 

 

Section 138.8 (1) of the statute specifies, however, that a liability action cannot be commenced "without leave of court granted upon motion with notice to each defendant." The court is to grant leave only "where it is satisfied" that the action "is being brought in good faith" and there is a "reasonable possibility" the plaintiff will prevail at trial.

 

 

The significance of Justice van Rensberg’s decision in the IMAX case is that, according to Justice van Rensberg, the IMAX case represents "the first .case in Ontario in which the court has been asked to grant leave in such an action." She also observed that the statutory provision "has never been interpreted previously" adding that there is no other statutory similar statutory provision in force in any other Canadian jurisdiction.

 

 

In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed, Justice van Rensberg held that "she is satisfied that the action is brought in good faith and that the plaintiffs have a reasonable possibility of success at trial in pursuing the statuory claims against all … parties" other  than with respect to two individual outside director defendants.  

 

 

Of particular significance is Justice van Rensberg’s conclusion that the standard to be used in determining whether a case should proceed is relatively low. With respect to the first part of the test, she said that "there is no reason to read in a ‘high’ or ‘substantial’ onus requirement for good faith in this type of proceeding." She also ruled against a more onerous threshold for the "reasonable possibility of sucess" part of the test, stating that "a threshold that is too difficult may have little deterrent value" and that an onerous threshold "may unduly lengthen and complicate the leave procedure." 

 

 

In a portion of the ruling that is of particular significance for outside directors serving on the boards of Canadian corporations, Justice van Rensberg specifically held that the statutory thresholds had been met with respect to several outside director defendants who served on the audit committee to the board or who otherwise had oversight responsibilties for the company’s disclosure documents. 

 

 

Justice van Rensberg also separately held that the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirement for the certification of a global class to assert both the statutory claims and certain common law claims that the plaintiffs had raised.  The approved class included both plaintiffs who had bought there IMAX shares on the TSX as well as those who had bought their shares on the NASDAQ exchange.

 

 

In certifying the class, van Rensberg specifically rejected the defendants’ arguments that the court could not include within the class the 80 to 85% of IMAX shareholders who resided in the U.S. or were otherwise non-Canadian. The defendants argued that it would be "extraordinary" for the court to recognize a class where most of the class members resided outside the jurisdiction. The defendants also argued that given the pendancy of the separate securities lawsuit pending in the U.S., it would be "premature" for the court to certify a worldwide class.

 

 

In rejecting the defendants’ arguments against certification of a worldwide class, Justice van Rensberg took particular note of the arguments that the defendants had raised in opposing class certification in the U.S. securities lawsuit, in which they had also argued against the certification of a global class in that case as well. The defendants in particular had urged the superiority of the Canadian action, leading van Rensberg to conclude that the defendants were trying to have it both ways.

 

 

Justice van Rensberg went on to conclude that the court had authority to certify an international class, noting that the case had a real and substantial connection between the claims asserted on behalf of the foreign class members and the jurisdiction. She also specifically rejected the argument that that the existence of the parallel U.S. proceeding represented a reason not to certify a global class in Canada.

 

 

The Post article quotes two leading Canadian plaintiffs’ class action securities attorneys, who predictably find much to like with the court rulings. Dimitri Lascarias, of the Siskinds law firm, who is co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the case, is quoted as saying the decisions represented a “huge undertaking” for the court because there are “no parallels.” He is also quoted as saying that “it’s a very good day for the investing public in Canada. For a long time it’s been difficult for them to advance their claims in a class action setting. Finally, there’s relief on the class-action horizon.” (The other co-lead counsel on the case was Jay Strosberg of the Sutts Strosberg firm.)

 

 

UPDATE: Dimitri Lascaris emailed me the following additional comment on the IMAX case: "We are obviously pleased with the decision, and are particularly gratified that the court certified a global class. Insofar as canadian issuers are concerned, the proper place for the rights of their shareholders, whether foreign or domestic, to be adjudicated is this country. "

 

 

I previously wrote about the IMAX case here in a post in which I raised the question about whether an action in Ontario might be used as a way to obtain discovery that could be used to support a parallel securities action pending in the United States. While that concern may remain, it may be likelier in light of these rulings that litigants may seek to pursue claims in Ontario not to support litigation elsewhere, but for its own sake and purposes, without reference to litigation in the U.S. or elsewhere. That said, the principles reflected in these rulings will be most compelling with respect to Canadian based corporations, suggesting that it is unlikely that the Ontario courts will be flooded with securities litigation involving companies from outside Canada.

 

 

With respect to Canadian companies, these rulings in the IMAX case unquestionably represent significant developments, and they suggest that there potentially could be significant additional litigation to come in the Ontario courts. Both Justice van Rensberg’s ruling that a low threshold should apply on a motion to leave and that an Ontario court may certify a worldwide class, if followed by other courts, could make Ontario an attractive jursidiction in which to pursue securities litigation, at least with respect to Canadian companies if not with respect to companies domiciled or based elsewhere.  

 

 

Julie Triedman has a December 15, 2009 article on the Am Law Litigation Daily (here) about the IMAX decisions that among other things quotes Lascaris as saying that the court certified of global class "and the door is now open for foreign investors to benefit from that protection."

 

 

UPDATE: Loyal reader and blog friend, Dave Williams of Chubb, sent me an email reminder that he will be chairing a panel on Securities Litigation developments in Canada at the PLUS D&O Symposium in New York on February 3-4, 2010. Background infromation regarding the Symposium can be found here. Speakers at the panel will include Justice Colin Campbell and Dimitri Lascaris, among others.

 

 

Very special thanks to Dimistri Lascaris for providing me with copies of Justice van Rensberg’s opinions in the IMAX case.  

 

 

I welcome comments on this blog from readers on these developments, particularly from my many friends north of the border that I know regularly read this blog.

 

 

Book Note: While I am in a Canadian mode, I want to recommend a recent excellent biography of Samuel de Champlain, the French explorer, navigator and mapmaker. In his splendid book Champlain’s Dream, author David Hackett Fischer (who also wrote the excellent book, Washington’s Crossing) tells Champlain’s extraordinary story.

 

 

Fischer convincingly argues that the success of French attempts to explore and colonize  North America were largely the result of Champlain’s persistent and courageous efforts. The portrait that emerges is one of a man of uncommon bravery and intelligence, who mastered not only the arts required for voyages of discovery but also the tact and finesse required to maintain necessary relations at court during the reigns of several French monarchs.  

 

 

Fischer also argues that Champlain was a noble and perhaps even heroic figure, in part because of his insistence that the Native Americans the French settlers encountered should be treated with dignity and respect. As a result, the French were able to establish far more amicable relations with the locals than were the English, Dutch and Spanish colonists.

 

 

A particularly good review of Fischer’s book from the October 31, 2008 New York Times can be found here.

 

 

 

What Passes for Humor These Days: My 16-year old son: “What’s brown and sticky?” Me: “I don’t know, what’s brown and sticky?” My son (after a pause): “A stick.” 

 

 

He told me that one right after he asked me, “What do you call cheese that isn’t yours?” Me: “I don’t know, what do you call cheese that isn’t yours?” My son: “Nacho Cheese.” (You might have to repeat that last one out loud a couple of times.)

 

 

Though the year-to-date tally of failed banks is, as of Friday night, now up to 133, the much-anticipated wave of FDIC litigation against the directors and officers of the failed institutions has been slower to emerge. As I recently noted, however, the signs are that the FDIC is now starting to assert itself. Along those lines, a demand letter from the FDIC to the former directors and officers of BankUnited FSB, filed in the bankruptcy proceedings of BankUnited’s corporate parent company, shows that the FDIC is prepared to assert claims and demonstrates what those claims will look like.

 

On May 21, 2009, in a rare Thursday night action, the FDIC took over BankUnited, about which refer here. At the time of its closure, BankUnited has assets of over $12 billion, but as a result of the loss share arrangement the FDIC reached with the investors that purchased BankUnited’s assets, the FDIC estimated that the bank’s failure would cost the FDIC $4.9 billion.

 

On May 22, 2009, BankUnited’s parent company, BankUnited Financial Corporation, and related entities filed a petition for bankruptcy in the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Florida.

 

According to court filings in the bankruptcy proceedings, BankUnited carried $50 million in directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, arranged in four layers. The program’s extended reporting period had a November 10, 2009 expiration date.

 

On November 24, 2009, the FDIC filed a motion with the bankruptcy court regarding the FDIC’s rights to assert claims against the BankUnited’s former directors and officers. A copy of the motion can be found here. In essence, the FDIC’s motion sought to establish the FDIC’s right to assert its claims in priority over the claims against the bank’s former directors and offices that committee on unsecured creditors and others sought to assert.

 

As part of its motion, the FDIC attached a copy of a November 5, 2009 letter that the FDIC, as BankUnited’s receiver, had sent to fifteen former directors and officers of the bank, in which the FDIC presented its "demand for civil damages arising out of losses suffered as a result of wrongful acts and omissions committed by the named Directors and Officers." The letter explains that the demand for civil damages is "based on the breach of duty, failure to supervise, negligence, and/or gross negligence of the named Directors and Officers."

 

Though the letter is nominally addressed to the fifteen individuals, copies of the letters also were sent directly to the bank’s primary and first level excess D&O insurers. The FDIC’s motion papers explain, in footnote 4, that the FDIC sent the letter to the bank’s primary and first level excess D&O insurers, but not to the second and third level excess D&O insurers, because the second and third level excess insurer’s policies "contain a regulatory exclusion."

 

In its November 5 letter, the FDIC states that its demand is based on damages "arising out of losses suffered due to wrongful acts committed in connection with the origination and administration of unsafe and unsound residential real estate loans." The letter cites in particular the individuals’ alleged wrongful acts in connection with "pursuing an overly aggressive grown strategy focused primarily on the controversial Payment Option ARM product (the ‘Option ARM’)." The letter asserts that by the end of 2007, Option ARM mortgages represented 70% of the bank’s residential loan portfolio and 60% of its total loan portfolio, and by 2008 represented 575% of the bank’s capital.

 

The letter asserts that individuals failed "to implement adequate credit administration and risk management controls failed to heed warnings and/or recommendations of bank supervisory authorities and bank consultants." The letter also states that the "inherent risk" of Option ARM loans was "coupled with deficiencies in the Bank’s underwriting, appraisal process and credit administration."

 

As the FDIC summarized in its November 24, 2009 motion, the letter asserts that the bank’s directors and officers:

 

(i) adopted an overly aggressive and reckless growth strategy by investing most of the Bank’s assets in "Option ARM" lending products;

(ii) failed to provide the Bank with adequate reserves for potential loan losses resulting from its investments in Option ARM lending products;

(iii) engaged in reckless, high-risk, and limited scrutiny lending;

(iv) failed to oversee the Bank’s affairs, including the failure to monitor the rising volume of loan delinquencies and to establish lending policies that would adequately protect the Bank; and

(v) failed to provide adequate personnel and administrative capacity to appropriately monitor loan appraisals and to carry out diligent underwriting reviews.

 

Among the FDIC’s more colorful allegations, the letter accuses the directors and offices of "encouraging an extremely liberal and aggressive lending mentality to ‘make the loan as long as the borrower has a pulse.’" The letter also accuses the individuals of "engaging in reckless, high-risk, and limited-scrutiny lending to fuel the bank’s aggressive and rapid growth — in direct contradiction to public representations of the bank’s conservative lending and strict underwriting policies."

 

In addition, the letter accuses the individuals of "approving and putting in place a compensation structure that drove the bank’s directors and officers to pursue recklessly risky lending and business practices."

 

The letter asserts that these "breaches of their fiduciary duties" caused the bank to suffer loan losses between January 1, 2006 and May 21, 2009 of over $227 million. In addition to these losses, the FDIC recognized a $4 billion loss to pay off liabilities the Bank used to fund its lending activities. The FDIC’s letter concludes with the note that its investigation is continuing and that it will supplement its demand as appropriate as its investigation progresses.

 

The FDIC’s demand letter demonstrates not only its willingness and intent to assert claims against the former officials of failed lending institutions, but also show that it is highly aware of the D&O insurance requirements relating to those claims. The timing of the FDIC’s November 5 demand letter (sent just prior to the insurance program’s expiration), coupled with the fact that no demand was sent to the excess carriers whose policies contain regulatory exclusions, shows that the FDIC claims approach is keyed to the failed financial institutions’ D&O insurance program.

 

So the signs are that the claims against the directors and officers of failed banks are coming, and that one of the principal purposes of the exercise is to try extract recoveries from the banks’ D&O insurance policies. Seems just like old times…

 

A December 11, 2009 Palm Beach Post article about the FDIC’s demand letter can be found here. Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the Palm Beach Post article.

 

More Troubled Bank Litigation: In yet another sign that litigation involving troubled banks could be an increasingly important part of D&O claims activity in the weeks and months ahead, on December 11, 2009, plaintiffs filed a purported securities class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Washington against Sterling Financial Corporation and two of its officers.

 

As reflected in the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ December 11 press release, the complaint, which can be found here, alleges that the defendants failed "to disclose the extent of seriously delinquent commercial real estate loans and construction and land loans" and that the defendants "failed to adequately and timely record losses for its impaired loans, causing its financial results and its Tier 1 capital ratio to be materially false."

 

According to the press release, the complaint further alleges that:

 

(a) defendants’ assets contained hundreds of millions of dollars worth of impaired and risky securities, many of which were backed by real estate that was rapidly dropping in value and for which Sterling had failed to record adequate loan loss reserves; (b) defendants failed to properly account for Sterling’s commercial real estate loans and construction and land development loans, failing to reflect impairment in the loans; (c) Sterling had not adequately reserved for loan losses such that its financial statements were presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (d) Sterling had not adequately accounted for its goodwill or its deferred tax assets such that its financial statements were presented in violation of GAAP; (e) Sterling had not adequately reserved for loan losses such that its Tier 1 capital was presented in violation of banking regulations; and (f) the Company’s capital base was not adequate enough to withstand the significant deterioration in the real estate markets and, as a result, Sterling would be forced to consent to a cease and desist order from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation directing it to raise $300 million in capital.

 

What makes the FDIC’s demand letter to the BankUnited officials and the shareholders’ complaint against Sterling Financial noteworthy is not that the banking activities to which the allegations relate are unique; to the contrary, it seems particularly important to note that during the period of the these banks’ alleged misconduct, many other banks were involved in the same or similar banking activities. This fact together with the growing number of failed banks and the significant additional numbers of troubled banks suggests that in the weeks and months ahead there could be many more demands and lawsuits along the lines of the ones described above.

 

I don’t think I am going out on a limb to say that litigation involving failed and troubled banks could be one of the most important litigation trends in 2010.

 

On December 11, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives approved by a 223-202 vote "The Wall Street Report and Consumer Protection Act of 2009," H.R. 4173 (here). The sprawling 1279-page Bill, which must be reconciled with competing financial reform legislation pending in the Senate, would institute a number of reforms and initiatives that would have a dramatic effect on the financial services industry.

 

In addition to the many higher profile institutional reforms, the Bill also incorporates a number of revisions and amendments that could significantly impact both SEC enforcement actions and private securities litigation.

 

The House Financial Services Committee’s two-page summary of the Bill can be found here. The Committee’s three page list of the Bill’s "highlights" can be found here.

 

The Bill’s high profile reforms include, among other things, the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency; the creation of a Financial Stability Council to identify large, interconnected firms that could put the financial system at risk; the creation of a single federal banking regulator; and the introduction of various regulatory reforms regarding financial derivatives and credit default swaps. The Bill also required hedge funds and private equity funds to register with the SEC.

 

As reflected on the RiskMetrics Corporate Governance Risk & Governance Blog (here), the House Bill also introduces a number of corporate governance reforms, including an annual "say on pay" mandate and authorization for the SEC to issue a proxy access rule. The bill includes a permanent exemption for small issuers (those with less than $75 million in market cap) from the outside auditor attestation requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

 

In addition to these higher profile initiatives, the House bill also incorporates variety of legislative revisions to the federal securities laws that could affect securities litigation. Some of these initiatives were the subject of separate legislative proposals that have now been incorporated into the larger financial reform legislation.

 

The House Bill’s provisions that potentially could impact securities litigation include the following:

 

1. Credit Rating Agencies (Section 6003): Clarifies the pleading standard applicable to private securities actions under the ’34 Act against "a nationally recognized statistical rating organization" by specifying that "it shall be sufficient for purposes of pleading any required state of mind for purposes of such action that the complaint shall state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the nationally recognized statistical rating organization knowingly or recklessly violated the securities laws."

 

The Section also specifies that NRSRO’s credit rating opinions "shall not be deemed forward looking statements."

 

2. Mandatory Arbitration (Section 7201): Gives the SEC authority to "prohibit, or impose conditions or limitations on the use of, agreements that require customers or clients of any broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer to arbitrate any future dispute between them arising under the Federal securities laws."

 

3. Whistleblower Incentives and Protection (Section 7203): Gives the SEC authority to "pay an award or awards not exceeding an amount equal to 30 percent, in total, of the monetary sanctions imposed in the action or related actions to one or more whistleblowers who voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the action."

 

4. Aiding and Abetting Liability (Section 7207): Amends the ’33 Act and the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide that for purposes of an action brought by the SEC, "any person that knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance to another person in violation of a provision of this Act, or of any rule or regulation issued under this Act, shall be deemed to be in violation of such provision to the same extent as the person to whom such assistance is provided."

 

Section 7215 also clarifies that recklessness is a sufficient basis on which to impose aiding and abetting liability under the ’34 Act

 

5. Extraterritorial Application of the Federal Securities Laws (Section 7216): Amends the ’33 Act, the ’34 Act and the Investment Advisors Act of 1934 to clarify that federal court jurisdiction for securities cases includes cases that involves "conduct within the United States that constitutes significant steps in furtherance of the violation, even if the securities transaction occurs outside the United States and involves only foreign investors" or "conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States."

 

6. Deadlines for Enforcement Investigations and Compliance Examinations (Section 7209): Introduces, subject to certain specified exemptions, certain time requirements within which the SEC must complete enforcement investigations and compliance examinations. Among other things, the Section provides that, other than with respect to certain "complex action," within 180 days after serving someone with a Wells Notice, the SEC must either initiate an action against the person or provide notice that it does not intend to file an action.

 

The House Bill also dramatically increases SEC funding, doubling the agency’s budget in five years. The Bill also expands the agency’s subpoena powers and its ability to share and access information gathered by other regulatory and investigative bodies and agencies.

 

Readers of this blog will also be interested to know that Section 8802 of House Bill also creates a Federal Insurance Office within the Treasury Department. The new Federal Insurance Office would not replace state regulation of insurance. Rather, the new agency would monitor the insurance industry; designate insurers for stricter oversight; assist in the administration of TRIA; coordinate on international insurance regulation; and consult with states on insurance matters of national importance.

 

It remains to be seen whether any of these provisions will survive the forthcoming legislative process and actually become law. The Wall Street Journal’s front page article about the House Bill (here) indicates that Democratic leadership in the Senate has committed to having a reconciled agreement in principle about the financial reform legislation by the end of December, to have a bill enacted in the first half of 2010.

 

While the legislation that finally emerges will undoubtedly reflect further changes, it is interesting to observe even at this preliminary stage how some of the proposed initiatives have fared.

 

For example, though it contains provisions addressing the SEC’s authority to enforce aiding and abetting liability under the ’33 Act and under the Investment Advisors Act, the House Bill, at least, does not contain any provisions along the lines of those proposed last summer by Senator Arlen Specter to overturn Stoneridge. Nor does the House Bill contain any provisions reflecting Senator Specter’s initiative to overturn Iqbal. Of course, because those initiatives originated on the Senate side, they may still be incorporated into the Senate version of the financial reform bill and perhaps even in the final version of the reform legislation that ultimately emerges.

 

As noted above, the House Bill does incorporate suggested provisions that would clarify federal court jurisdiction in matters involving companies or persons outside the U.S. These provisions mirror the proposed legislation that Representative Paul Kanjorski introduced earlier this fall (as discussed in a prior post, here.) This jurisdictional provision, if enacted, could make the National Australia Bank case, on which the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted a petition for writ of certiorari, of considerably less potential significance, as jurisdictional issues raised in the case would be controlled in future by the new statutory provisions.

 

Given the current political climate, it seems probable that some form of financial reform legislation will be enacted prior to the 2010 congressional election. The ultimate version may be far different that the Bill approved by the House on Friday. However, if the House Bill is any indication of what might finally emerge, there could be some enormous changes ahead, including among other things significant changes relating to securities litigation and enforcement.

 

Random Thought: Is there anything more unintentionally ironic and completely self-negating than the phrase "This Page Intentionally Left Blank"? (This Internet being what it is, there is actually a website devoted to the phrase, here.)

 

In a provocative statement suggesting the unlikelihood of "damage awards" against subprime lenders’ directors and officers, XL Capital Ltd. CEO Michael McGavick yesterday told a Goldman Sachs Group conference that "being collectively stupid is not a basis for a lawsuit," according to a December 9, 2009 Bloomberg article (here).

 

As reflected in the article, McGavick indicated that investors have little chance of extracting damages awards from executives and board members at firms that lost money, as the article put it, "betting on subprime mortgages." McGavick is quoted as saying that its "very hard to pick out the management team that did something wrong to the level that the law requires."

 

McGavick’s comments have already kicked up controversy, as reflected in Ross Todd’s December 9, 2009 article on Am Law Litigation Daily, entitled "Are Directors and Officers Safe from Securities Fraud Suits Because They Were ‘Collectively Stupid?’" (here).

 

However, it is difficult to tell from the Bloomberg article how comprehensive McGavick’s comments were intended to be. Was he talking only about companies that invested in subprime mortgages or was he talking about a larger group of companies, including subprime lenders and other companies that were brought down or seriously damaged by the subprime meltdown?

 

Subject to that uncertainty about the scope of McGavick’s comments, I have several thoughts and comments in reaction to his remarks.

 

As an initial matter I note that while it may be true that "collective stupidity" hardly represents a legal theory on which liability might be based, it also is not a very promising defense. Even setting aside the colorful use of the word "stupidity," it is not a great defense to argue that everybody managed to get it wrong, as proved to be the case in the connection with options backdating, for example.

 

And to the extent that McGavick’s statement was intended to be broadly based and was meant to suggest generally that plaintiffs are unlikely to even file lawsuits based on the subprime meltdown, the facts suggest otherwise. Plaintiffs have already filed over 200 subprime and credit crisis securities class action lawsuits (as reflected in the attachment to this prior blog post), as well as over 25 derivative lawsuits and over 15 ERISA class actions. Clearly, the plaintiffs’ lawyers perceive what McGavick characterized as "collective stupidity" to be a litigation opportunity.

 

If McGavick’s statement was intended to suggest that plaintiffs will not succeed in the cases arising out of the subprime meltdown, I have to say that from my perspective it is far too early to make any sweeping statements about who will come out ahead generally from the subprime and credit crisis lawsuits.

 

Specifically, even though there have been over 200 subprime and credit crisis related securities class action lawsuits, only a small portion of those cases have made it through the dismissal stage as reflected in my running tally of the rulings on subprime lawsuit dismissal motions, which can be accessed here.

 

Although the defendants have prevailed in many of the motions so far, there have also been a number of motions on which plaintiffs have prevailed – for example in the New Century and Countrywide cases (as reflected here and here, respectively). Indeed, there have been cases, like the Washington Mutual case (refer here), where the initial motion was granted, but the cases survived the renewed motion after the complaint was amended.

 

And even though there have only been a handful of settlements in the subprime and credit crisis cases so far, the settlements so far collectively represent nearly a billion dollars. Even if the out-sized Merrill Lynch settlements are disregarded, the other settlements still represent some very significant numbers. (The settlement data can be accessed here). Even modest extrapolation against the entire population of lawsuits suggests that even if plaintiffs don’t extract "damages awards," they are likely to notch some significant settlements before everything is said and done.

 

With so many of the subprime and credit crisis cases yet to be resolved, I think the most that can be said with respect to the D&O insurance industry’s likely aggregate exposure to the subprime and credit crisis lawsuits is that it is too early to tell. I will say that if you take into account the aggregate expenses that the D&O industry will sustain in defending insureds, it is clear that by any measure that the subprime and credit crisis litigation wave will in the final analysis represent a significant event for the D&O insurance industry, no matter what happens.

 

My prior interim update on the subprime and credit crisis-related litigation wave can be found here.

 

In many prior posts (refer here), I have suggested that FCPA-related losses could represent a growing D&O exposure. In a recent demonstration of just how significant these kinds of exposures can be, Siemens disclosed  earlier this week that it has reached a 100 million euro settlement with its D&O insurers in connection with the claims arising from the company’s bribery scandal. The filing, which incorporates the insurance settlement documentation, raises a number of interesting issues.

 

In its December 8, 2009 filing of Form 6-K (here), Siemens reports that on December 2, 2009, the company reached a settlement agreement with its D&O liability insurers, while simultaneously announcing that it had also reached settlements with a number of its former directors and officers against whom it has asserted damages claims arising out of the bribery scandal. The settlements include the agreement of the company’s former CEO Heinrich von Pierer to pay 5 million euros, and of his successor, Klaus Kleinfeld, to pay 2 million euros. Other former board members agreed to pay amounts ranging from 1 million euros to 3 million euros.

 

The filing explains that Siemens had a total of 250 million euros of D&O insurance coverage, arranged in five layers of 50 million euros each. Each layer had a lead insurer as well as participating coinsurers. The settlement agreement, which can be found in Annex 10 to the filing, identifies the lead insurers and the participating coinsurers for each layer.

 

The insurance settlement requires a payment to Siemens of up to 100 million euros, consisting of two parts: a payment of 90 million euros (against which prior defense payments of 5.5 million euros are to be credited) and as well as the payment of an additional fund of 10 million euros. The 10 million euro fund is to be maintained for the defense of future claims as well as for the satisfaction of "justified claims." that are asserted against former Board Members based on the bribery allegations or that have no connection with bribery allegation but for which coverage would have otherwise have been available under the D&O insurance program.

 

All of the layers in the Siemens D&O insurance program participated in the settlement, with each successive layer contributing a proportionately smaller percentage of the layer’s 50 million euro limit.. (The percentage participations applicable to each layer are specified in the settlement agreement.) The 10 million euro fund is to be managed by the lead insurer on the primary layer on behalf of all the insurers.

 

The settlement agreement recites that the insurance settlement was the result of "intensive discussion" and that the Insurers had previously indicated that coverage might be denied on the grounds of, among other things, "pre-contractual knowledge and/or fraudulent/intentional violations of duties, and/or certain rights by unilateral declaration [that] can be exercised, which would lead to retroactive rescission of the D&O insurance." The parties reached the settlement in order to avoid the need to litigate these issues as well as to avoid the need for Siemens to pursue an action against … former Board Members who settled with Siemens in order to establish their liability as a precondition for the obligation to provide coverage."

 

Siemens’ SEC filing also reflects the settlement agreements reached separately with various former company officials. The filing recites that in connection with the individual settlements the individuals have agreed "not to draw on the D&O insurance coverage" in connection with their agreed payments to the company.

 

The agreement is subject to shareholder approval, which will be determined at the company’s January 26, 2010 shareholder meeting. (The shareholders will also vote on the individual settlements as well). The agreement clarifies that upon the effectiveness of the settlement, the insurance policies will be "retroactively terminated."

 

If it is "determined by a non-appealable court decision that individual Former Board Members intentionally or knowingly … violated their duties," then the Insurers shall be entitled to ask for reimbursement of defense costs paid to the respective former Board Member. The lead primary insurer is designated to administer this portion of the agreement.

 

There are a host of interesting things about this settlement.

 

The first is the marginal note accompanying the settlement stating that Michael Diekmann, a member of Siemens’ Supervisory Board, is the chairman of the Management Board of the parent holding company of the lead insurer on Siemens’ primary D&O insurance policy. The filing states that "Mr. Diekmann did not participate in the consultations and decisions pertaining to the Coverage Settlement." Call me cynical, but even if he didn’t participate in the consultations, this connection didn’t exactly impede the settlement either, if you take my meaning. To me this fact seems like it might help explain how there was any settlement at all, rather than the mother of all European D&O coverage lawsuits.

 

The second interesting thing is the way the D&O insurance policies are responding. The insurers are making a claims payment directly to the company, for claims that have been asserted by the company against its former officers. Unless the company’s European-issued insurance policies lack the kind of Insured vs. Insured exclusion that is standard in D&O policies issued in the U.S., there is something very peculiar about this payment. Even if the company itself is not an insured under the policy, it would seem like there would be an exclusion to protect against the possibility of collusive claims. Of course, there might have been such as exclusion in Siemens program and it was simply compromised as part of the settlement. (Readers who can help rationalize this apparent Insured vs. Insured problem are cordially invited to clarify, using this blog’s comment function.)

 

UPDATE: A knowledgeable European reader who prefers anonymity sent me a note with the following observation:"Regarding the payment towards the company we usually don´t carry IvI-exclusions over here in Germany. Most of the claims are made by the companies against individual directors and officers, word is that it´s around 80% or more of the times. We are basically still in the fledging stages of D&O litigation over here, D&O coverage was allowed in 1986, distribution really didn´t took off until the end of the 90s. The mentality over here regarding the pursue of claims against your directors and officers is totally different than in the US. Until the middle of the 90s, courts hadn´t even ruled on supervisory boards being forced to pursue claims against directors and officers."

 

The other thing about the insurers’ 90 million euro payment (less defense expenses previously paid) is the question of what exactly it represents. Simultaneously with the insurance settlement, Siemens settled its claims against most of the former company officials. So those claims have been resolved by individual payments for which the individuals are prohibited from seeking insurance. There are remaining claims against other individuals, but that is what the 10 million euro fund is for. So what exactly is the 90 million euro (less prior defense expense) payment for? Of course, the company has incurred literally billions of costs, expenses, fines and penalties in connection with the bribery scandal, but I don’t think the insurers are paying for the company’s own scandal related expenses. 

 

The settlement agreement recites that, among other things, the insurance settlement relieved the company of the need to file and pursue actual lawsuits against former board members. I guess the internal logic of the settlement agreement is that the company could have pursued the lawsuits, and if they did, each would have to be litigated and separately settled, and the insurer would have to pay (assuming the claims were covered). The insurance settlement in effect says that we are just going to cut out all the intervening steps and compromise everything for a single payment.

 

The third feature is the way the settlement incorporates a settlement fund for future losses. It is on the one hand an escrow fund, but on the other hand it is more like insurance, or perhaps the residue of insurance with certain insurance-like attributes (e.g., it only applies to "justified" claims) The insurers are in effect providing a limited amount of insurance, but in a bargained down amount, with many fewer conditions.

 

Fourth, to the extent the insurance policies provided any type of insurance coverage for securities claims, the compromise and termination apparently precludes the availability of insurance in connection with the securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of New York last week, in which the plaintiffs alleged violations of U.S. securities laws solely against Siemens. (The $10 million fund would not be available in connection with this claim, because the claim was filed solely against the company, but the fund was set up only for claims asserted against former board members.)

 

Finally, I wonder what this settlement and the company’s settlements with the individual former company officials do to the derivative lawsuit that was filed in New York earlier in connection with the bribery scandal (refer here, see page 18). It is entirely possible that that case fell by the wayside earlier on, or that it was preempted by the claims the company itself asserted against the individuals. But it is an interesting question what impact these developments would have on the New York derivative lawsuit if it were still an active case. (Readers who may have any insight into the status of the derivative lawsuit are encouraged to provide updated information via the comment feature of this blog.)

 

Whatever else may be said about the settlement, it clearly represents a massive hit to the European D&O insurers. Hits on this scale may have become almost commonplace in the U.S., but this type of loss is still represents an extraordinary D&O insurance development in Europe. I wonder if this settlement is a game changer for the European D&O insurance community. UPDATE: Readers have advised me that massive D&O settlements on this scale are unfortunately becoming all too common in Europe as well; one example cited is the recent 57.5 million euro settlment involving EM.TV.

 

Finally, it is worth noting that the massive amount of the insurance settlement underscores the extent of the exposure that bribery-related claims represent. Though the Siemens case is extraordinary on many levels, the kind of insurance losses on claims related to bribery-related allegations are becoming increasingly common. As the Siemens insurance settlement demonstrates, the exposures are clearly not limited just to the United States.

 

On December 7, 2009, NERA released its most recent update on trends in the numbers and values of settlements of SEC enforcement actions. The latest study, which is as of September 30, 2009 and complete through the end of the SEC’s 2009 fiscal year, shows that the number of settlements during the year declined for the second straight year, but the average settlement amount increased, and the median settlement amount held steady. NERA’s December 7 press release regarding the study can be found here.

 

As the report notes, because the 2009 settlements largely relate actions initiated in earlier periods, they may or may not be indicative of what reasonably may be expected in the SEC’s current heightened enforcement environment.

 

In addition, the reports observations about the high frequency of individual participation in the settlement of SEC enforcement actions may provide important additional context for Judge Rakoff’s recent high profile rejection of the proposed settlement of the SEC’s enforcement action involving the Merrill Lynch bonuses.

 

First, with respect to the numbers of settlements, the report shows that there were 626 settlements in fiscal 2009, compared to 673 in fiscal and 717 in fiscal 2007. Among other things, the report notes that fiscal 2009 was a year characterized by staff turnover and transition for the agency’s top leadership, which may be relevant to understanding the relative decline in the numbers of settlements.

 

Monetary payments were a component of 58.6% of company settlements and 58.9% of individual settlements for FY 2009. The average monetary SEC settlement during fiscal 2009 was $10.7 million, compared to only $4.7 million in fiscal 2008, but the increased 2009 average is largely a reflection of several very large settlements during fiscal 2009, including, for example, the $350 million Siemens paid in settlement of the FCPA enforcement action the agency filed against the company. Removing the settlements in excess of $100 million reduces the FY 2009 average to $4.4 million.

 

By contrast to the average, the median SEC enforcement settlement was about $1.0 million, about equal to the prior fiscal year’s median.

 

Among largest source of SEC enforcement actions are cases involving alleged misstatements. In an interesting analysis of the relationship between individual and corporate settlements in misstatement cases, the report notes that between the enactment of SOX and the end of FY 2009, the SEC had reached settlements in 353 cases involving alleged misstatements by corporate companies. Of these 353 settlements, 62 involved only the company, 99 cases involve only individual directors or employees, but the remaining 192 cases involved both the company and individuals.

 

In other words, individuals participate to a greater or lesser extent in the vast majority of SEC enforcement actions involving misstatements. As the report points, this pattern presents interesting additional context for Judge Rakoff’s high profile rejection of the SEC’s proposed settlement of the Merrill Lynch bonus enforcement action. Judge Rakoff faulted the proposed settlement because it fined the company (and its shareholders) but not the supposedly blameworthy individuals.

 

The report notes that this outcome is likely to spur the SEC to pursue individuals with "renewed vigor" and indeed SEC officials have made statements to that effect. The SEC’s own settlement patterns show that in general it is the agency’s practice to involve individuals in settlement of restatement cases.

 

The report reflects a number of different interesting findings, and also contains some helpful and interesting tables, including lists of the ten largest corporate and individual post-SOX settlements, as well as interesting data showing relating to the number of insider trading settlements – somewhat unexpectedly, the number of inside trading settlements hit a post-SOX low during fiscal 2009.

 

The report concludes with the observation that the full impact of the reforms that the SEC has only just begun to initiate "is likely yet to be seen." The report suggests that the trends observed in the most recent report are likely to change in the periods ahead.

 

SEC Files Enforcement Action Against Former New Century Officials: Perhaps as a reflection of the newly more active SEC, on December 7, 2009, the SEC filed an enforcement action in the Central District of California against three former New Century Financial Corporation officials.

 

The SEC’s complaint, which can be found here, alleges that the three defendants violated the securities laws failed to disclose important negative information, including dramatic increases in early loan defaults, loan repurchases, and pending loan repurchase requests. Defendants knew this negative information from numerous internal reports they regularly received, including weekly reports ominously referred to internally as "Storm Watch." The SEC’s December 7 litigation release about the action can be found here. 

 

The timing of the SEC’s enforcement action against the three New Century officials stands in interesting contrast to the private securities class action lawsuit filed against certain former New Century officials. The private securities, which was the first of the subprime related securities class action lawsuits when it was first filed in February 2007, is nearly three years old. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss almost exactly a year ago.

 

 

 The more interesting question is whether the filing of the New Century action represents the first in a series of enforcement actions related to the subprime meltdown and credit crisis. In light of the new environment at the agency and the pressure it is under to reestablish its regulatory credentials, there may well be further actions yet to come.

More than three years have passed since the first blockbuster revelations about corrupt payments at Siemens, yet litigation arising from the scandal continues to emerge. On December 4, 2009, plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against Siemens, based on alleged misrepresentations following initial revelations of the improper payments. The complaint, which can be found here, has a number of interesting features and it potentially raises complicated issues.

 

As reflected in a prior post (here), the bribery scandal at Siemens hit the front pages of the world’s financial papers in late 2006 after more than 200 German police raided the offices and homes of over 30 current and former Siemens employees. The ensuing investigation and enforcement action culminated in the December 15, 2008 announcement (here), that Siemens had agreed to pay a total of $350 million in disgorgement to the SEC, a criminal fine of $450 million to the U.S., and a fine of 395 euros to the office of the Prosecutor General in Germany.

 

The recently filed securities suit refers extensively to the SEC’s enforcement complaint against the company. But though the class action complaint is inextricably linked to the company’s bribery revelations, the complaint is not about the bribery disclosures as such. Rather, the complaint purports to be based on company statements about its business prospects and its ability to compete without making improper payments.

 

That is, the complaint alleges that the company claimed that it "had cleaned up [the] corporate-wide scandal and that it would meet its publicly announced revenue and earning projections" – but, the complaint further alleges, "Siemens ability to generate revenues and achieve earnings expectations was clearly dependent on its corporate-wide bribery activities."

 

Consistent with the theory that the complaint is not about the bribery itself but about the company’s claims about how it would fare as a bribery-free competitor, the proposed class period does not commence at some time prior to the bribery revelations. Instead, the proposed class period begins more than a year after the scandal first emerged, in November 2007, when new management projected significant growth for the company.

 

During the class period, the complaint alleges, management sought to dispel concerns that the lingering bribery investigation would have an adverse impact on the company’s ability to meet its earnings projections. The proposed class period ends at the end of the company’s 2008 second fiscal quarter, when the company announced a sharp drop in second quarter profits.

 

So while the plaintiff’s complaint consists almost exclusively of a detailed recounting of the bribery scandal and its regulatory aftermath, the complaint isn’t about the bribery or even the revelations about the bribery at all; instead, the plaintiffs seek damages based on what the company allegedly said about whether it could meet its goals now that it was no longer getting business by paying bribes.

 

Plaintiffs will obviously face certain challenges demonstrating that their claimed damages are due to these statements about Siemens’ prospects without bribing officials, as opposed to ongoing revelations concerning the bribery investigation – which continued both during and after the proposed class period. Indeed, the class period ends at the same time as the company disclosed certain findings of the law firm the company had hired to investigate the bribery allegations.

 

In one sense it seems as if the plaintiffs arguably are trying to have it both ways with respect to damages. They do not allege what harm was due to the company’s supposedly misleading projections; rather they allege only that "as a result of defendant’s fraud and misconduct, Siemens’ shareholders have suffered, and will continue to suffer, billion of dollars of damages." These broad damages claims are arguably at odds with the complaint’s relatively narrow class period and narrow range of alleged misrepresentations.

 

The complaint may also be susceptible to challenges that it does not sufficiently allege scienter. In that regard, it is interesting to note that the sole defendant named is the company. No individuals are named as defendants. Without any individual defendants, the possibility for the complaint to survive a dismissal motion will depend on some kind of "collective scienter," based on the supposed knowledge or recklessness of responsible corporate officials.

 

Critically, for the plaintiff’s complaint to succeed, they will have to show that during the class period, senior company officials knew (or were reckless in disregarding) that the company could not make its earnings targets without resorting to bribery. To put it as neutrally as I can, it is unclear from the complaint what allegations the plaintiffs intend to rely upon to show that the company’s senior officials knew during the class period that without improper payments Siemens could not meet its earnings projections.

 

The complaint could also face certain hurdles with respect to the claims of so-called "f-cubed" claimants. The proposed class period is not limited solely to the claims of investors who purchased their Siemens securities on the NYSE. To the extent the class purports to include the claims of foreign-domiciled investors who bought their shares in Siemens on a foreign exchange, the complaint could present the same kinds of jurisdictional issues as were raised in the National Australia Bank case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted a petition for writ of certiorari.

 

Perhaps in anticipation of these kinds of concerns, the new class complaint quotes liberally from the SEC’s allegations concerning the "nexus" between the improper payments and the U.S. However, the misleading statements that are the basis of the new class action complaint clearly appear from the face of the complaint to have been made in Germany. It is therefore possible that the claims of "f-cubed" class members could be susceptible to jurisdictional challenge.

 

In any event, and at a minimum, this case presents yet another concrete example of the way in which regulatory or enforcement investigations into corrupt payments can lead to civil litigation, which many readers will recognize as a recurring theme on this blog.

 

The fact that no individuals are named as defendants in the lawsuit is unusual, and could generate any number of interesting D&O coverage issues. For example, at least in the early days when company coverage first began to be added to insurance policies that previously only protected individuals, the company’s coverage was only available if there were also claims against individuals. These co-defendant requirements largely have fallen by the wayside over time, but the policy’s bias towards protecting individuals in preference to the company still survive in a various respects.

 

A related question about the company’s coverage is whether or not the company’s various admissions in connection with the prior regulatory or other settlements would trigger the conduct exclusions found in most D&O policies. I suppose that if the exclusion is sufficiently narrow, the company could argue that whatever else the company may have admitted, it did not make any admissions about the statements alleged in this complaint to be fraudulent. However, if the exclusion has a broader preamble, a carrier might well argue that the wrongful acts alleged in this complaint arise out of, related to or are based upon improper conduct to which the company as admitted.

 

In its December 3, 2009 filing on Form-10-Q (here), Dell disclosed that on November 20, 2009, it had entered a written agreement to pay $40 million to settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending against the company and certain of its directors and officers.

 

What makes the $40 million Dell settlement noteworthy is not its amount but its timing – the settlement comes not only after the securities lawsuit had been dismissed with prejudice at the district court level, but following oral argument on the plaintiffs’ subsequent appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

 

On September 13, 2006, the first of four securities class action lawsuits were filed in the Western District of Texas against Dell and four individual defendants, as well as against the company’s outside auditor. The plaintiffs’ 340-page Consolidated Amended Complaint (here) alleges that the company had a "culture of deception" and that it had used "fraudulent accounting" to inflate its revenues by $463 million for fiscal years 2003 through the 2006.

 

The plaintiffs further alleges that the individual defendants took advantage of the company’s inflated share price to unload millions of dollars of their personal holdings in the company stock – indeed, in the case of company founder, Michael Dell, the plaintiffs alleged that he had sold billions of dollars of company stock.

 

In an opinion dated October 6, 2008, Judge Sam Sparks granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit. According to Dell’s most recent 10-Q, oral argument on the appeal took place before the Fifth Circuit on September 1, 2009. Thereafter, and while the appeal was still pending, the parties reached the settlement agreement described above. The parties jointly request that the Fifth Circuit remand the case so that the district court could consider the proposed class settlement.

 

As surprising as it is for a case to have settled following dismissal and while appeal was pending, this peculiar settlement timing is not entirely unprecedented. Most notably, the parties to the Bristol- Myers Squibb securities class action lawsuit agreed to settle that case for $300 million while the case was on appeal to the Third Circuit following the district court’s dismissal.

 

But even though it may have happened before for a securities case to be settled while on appeal following dismissal, the timing of the $40 million Dell settlement – coming as it did shortly after oral argument – does leave you wondering why the case settled when it did.

 

In her blog Footnoted (here), Michelle Leder, who was the first to note and report on the Dell settlement disclosure, speculates that the appeal "had to have gone really poorly" for the company to settle after securing dismissal in the court below. To a certain extent, Leder’s speculation seems plausible. Why else would the company agree to pay $40 million to settle a case that it had already managed to get dismissed?

 

There are some other possibilities. The first is that the company just wanted the case gone. Old cases, even those that are going reasonably well, don’t get better with age. More that one litigant has thrown money at a case just to get rid of it, and for a company with annual revenues of $12.9 billion and third quarter earnings of $337 million, the $40 million settlement (to the extent not funded by insurance) could represent a regrettable but relatively small cost of doing business.

 

Another possibility is that the plaintiffs are the ones for whom oral argument had gone poorly, and that thereafter for the first time they were willing to negotiate in a range that Dell was willing to consider.

 

Whatever the reason for the odd settlement timing, the fact that the parties were able to settle a case while on appeal and after oral argument shows that in a securities lawsuit, the possibility for a deal is always somewhere on the table.

 

Very few securities suits go to trial – in general, the cases either are dismissed or they settle. And, as the Dell case shows, sometimes a case can be both dismissed and settled.

 

Readers who have insight they can share about why the Dell case settled when it did are cordially invited to pass that information along. If I learn anything interesting from readers, I will add it to this post. Anonymity for those who need it will be scrupulously protected.

 

UPDATE: Alison Frankel has a very interesting December 7, 2009 post on the Am Law Litigation Daily (here) about the Dell settlement, including additional procedural history and statements from the plaintiffs’ counsel about the settlement.

 

In closing, I should add a note of appreciation for the Footnoted blog. Michelle Leder consistently reports nuggets she has unearthed by digging through companies’ SEC filings. As a result of her diligence, she regularly reports perceptive and interesting things that no one else has noticed. Her site demonstrates the incredible value and power of a really good blog. Footnoted, everyone here at The D&O Diary salutes you.

 

With 124 failed banks so far in 2009, and more likely to come in the weeks and months ahead, one recurring question has been whether the FDIC will be as aggressive in pursuing claims against directors and officers of failed lenders as it was during the S&L crisis. While we are awaiting the arrival of the seemingly inevitable regulator lawsuits, it is worth reviewing what the FDIC’s receivership litigation rights look like.

 

A recent decision out of the Northern District of Georgia arising from the 2008 failure of Integrity Bank and citing the body of case law the FDIC developed during the last failed bank era examines the FDIC’s litigation rights and also strongly reinforces the impression that the FDIC has D&O claims on its agenda.

 

Background

Integrity Bancshares is the parent holding company of Integrity Bank of Alpharetta, Georgia. On August 29, 2008, Georgia banking regulators closed Integrity Bank and the FDIC was appointed as receiver. On October 13, 2008, the holding company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

 

In February 2009, the bankruptcy trustee filed a damages action against four individual directors and officers for breach of fiduciary duties and negligence. Though some of the individual defendants were directors and officers of both the holding company and of the bank, the trustee’s claims are based solely on the individual defendants’ capacities as officers of the holding company and the bank. The trustee also filed an action against the bank’s D&O insurer seeking a judicial declaration of coverage for the damages action.

 

The trustee’s damages action alleges that the individual defendants harmed the now-bankrupt holding company and imperiled the capital that the holding company raised for and provided to the bank, by negligently managing the bank’s operations. Among other things, the trustee alleges that the bank’s lending practices, for which the individual defendants were responsible, were deeply flawed and were characterized by loans to speculative developments made at substantial variance to the bank’s putative lending requirements.

 

The FDIC intervened in the trustee’s damages action to assert that the trustee lacks standing to bring the damages claims, because the essentially derivative claims the trustee has brought belong to the FDIC as receiver of Integrity Bank. The individual defendants and their D&O insurer also moved to dismiss the declaratory judgment action based on the absence of an actual case or controversy.

 

The Court’s Opinion

In a November 30, 2009 opinion (here), Judge Richard W. Story granted the FDIC’s motion to dismiss, holding that under the Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) all derivative claims against the officers and directors of Integrity Bank belong to the FDIC.

 

Judge Story observed that to have standing, the trustee would have to allege that the defendants caused direct and unique harm to the bankrupt holding company. But, Judge Story found, all of the alleged misconduct took place at the bank level. The allegations relate "only to actions taken in the Defendants’ roles as Bank officers." The harm to the holding company alleged is in its capacity "as a shareholder to the Bank," and the alleged harm is "secondary and predicated upon injury to the Bank."

 

Judge Story found that

 

Once the FDIC-R became the receiver of the Bank, the Debtor [i.e, the bank’s parent holding company] no longer had the ability to bring derivative claims against the officers of the Bank, because the FDIC-R succeeded to those claims. The fact that the Debtor subsequently declared bankruptcy did not create in the Trustee any standing that the Debtor did not already possess. Therefore, the Trustee does not have standing to bring the derivative claims alleged in the Damages Complaint.

 

Judge Story also found that though the complaint stated that the Trustee alleged "direct and unique harm," these allegations represent mere conclusory allegations insufficient to satisfy threshold pleading requirements under Iqbal.

 

Finally, Judge Story granted the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action as moot, essentially ruling that the court cannot rule on coverage issues until the underlying claims have been addressed.

 

Discussion

I literally have not had occasion to write or type the acronym "FIRREA" for over 15 years. Reading Judge Story’s opinion really is like déjà vu all over again. All of the key cases Judge Story cites are over 15 years old. This all has an uncannily familiar feel.

 

But there’s no nostalgia here.

 

No one should miss the obvious implication from the FDIC’s intervention in the Integrity case that if anybody is going to sue the directors and officers, it is going to be the FDIC. The FDIC’s assertion of its successor rights to derivative claims is not a mere academic exercise. The FDIC’s intervention looks like a blocking tactic calculated to preserve its ability to pursue its own claims as receiver.

 

All of this makes me feel like Harry Potter revealing the awful truth to his fellow students at Hogwarts – Voldemort is back, after a 14 year absence. (We still bear the scars from our last encounter, which quite nearly killed us, too.)

 

So it may be time to retrieve all those old files out of storage, because it looks like its dead bank litigation time again. Indeed, with the return of the regulatory exclusion on many financial institutions D&O policies, this may well and truly be déjà vu all over again.

 

To end where I began, with 124 failed banks this year, I think it is only a matter of time before we see the FDIC pursuing many claims against the directors and officers of failed financial institutions. As the Integrity Bank case makes clear, the FDIC as receiver has rights under FIRREA to pursue derivative claims against the Ds and Os of the failed banks.

 

Strap on your helmets.

Very special thanks to Henry Turner of the Turner Law Offices for providing me with a copy of Judge Story’s opinion.

 

More About Iqbal: Judge Story’s reference to Iqbal reminds me to advise readers that the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today on Senator Specter’s bill to set aside Iqbal. The Witness Testimony and Members’ Statements can be found on the Committee’s Hearings page, here. The Blog of the Legal Times has a short summary of the hearings, here. The short version is that the Democrat members ot the Committee think Iqbal is bad.

 

Those readers interested in the intellectual debate over the merits of Iqbal will want to refer to the Drug and Device Law blog, where the authors have agreed to engage in a point/counterpoint on the Iqbal decision with Univesity of Pennsylvania Law Professor Stephen Burbank. The first volley in the exchage can be found here.

 

Vanity Fair on Goldman: If you have not yet seen it, you will want to take a look at the article about Goldman Sachs by Bethany McLean in the January 2010 issue of Vanity Fair, entitled "The Bank Job" (here). The article reviews Goldman’s perspective on the its role in the global financial crisis and its aftermath. It also does a good job capturing the widespread outrage regarding Goldman’s compensation, as well as the conspiracy theories about Goldman’s various connections to official Washington. Basic theme: storied but aggressive bunch of capitalists has managed to draw a huge target on its own back.

 

Bethany McLean is an old hand at reporting on arrogant corporations, having co-authored Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.

 

Speakers’ Corner: On Thursday December 3, 2009, I will be presenting at Skadden’s Annual Securities Litigation and Enforcement Seminar.

 

 

Courts in the financial center of New York and the tech hotspot of California tend to be where much of the headline grabbing securities law action usually takes place. But this week, the most significant action is in  Washington, D.C., as the Supreme Court and Congress are weighing into several of the hottest topic under the U.S. securities laws.

 

First, on Monday, November 30, 2009, the Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari in the National Australia Bank case. As a result of taking the case, the Supreme Court is likely to confront generally the question of extraterritorial application of the U.S. federal securities law and will address specifically the question of when U.S. court can properly exercise jurisdiction over securities law claims of so-called "f-cubed" claimants (that is, foreign investors who bought their shares in foreign-domiciled companies on foreign exchanges.) Background on the NAB case can be found here.

 

Second, and also on Monday, November 30, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Merck Vioxx case, in which the Court will address the question of what is required in order to establish "inquiry notice" sufficient to trigger the two-year statute of limitations for private securities lawsuits under the ’34 Act. Background on the Merck case can be found here.

 

Third, on December 2, 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on Senator Arlen Specter’s proposed legislation entitled "The Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009," which is calculated to set aside the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in the Twobley and Iqbal cases. These cases define standards for threshold pleading issues in all federal civil cases, including securities cases. A discussion on the background on the significance of the Iqbal decision for securities cases can be found here.

 

A link for the Senate Judiciary Committee session, which is entitled "Has the Supreme Court Limited Americans’ Access to Justice?," can be found here. The Committee hearing will be webcast and a link of the webcast can be found on the Committee’s hearings webpage.

 

Each of these developments has potential to work sufficient alterations to important aspects of the securities laws or to their application.

 

The NAB case potentially could represent a very significant milestone on the issue of the overseas reach of domestic securities laws in a global economy. The Merck case, though focused on a technical statute of limitations issues, could have important practical consequences (particularly these days when for whatever reason plaintiffs’ lawyers increasingly seem to be filing cases belatedly). Finally, Senator Specter’s bill could produce significant changes on the threshold pleading standards for all civil cases, including securities cases.

 

A November 30, 2009 Law.com article (here) suggests that the Supreme Court showed substantial skepticism that there were sufficient "storm warnings" earlier on that would have put plaintiffs on "inquiry notice" sufficient to trigger the running of the statute of limitations. Ashby Jones also has an interesting post on the WSJ.com Law Blog (here) about the oral argument.

 

Soon Everyone Will Have a Blog: A column in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reports (here) that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad maintains a blog, called "Mahmoud Ahmadinajad’s Personal Memos." (No link supplied here, it just seems ill-advised to visit the site). Not only does Ahmadinajad have a blog, but his blogging experience is one to which many bloggers – including your humble correspondent — can relate. The column reports that Ahmadinajad "allots himself 15 minutes a week to write his blog, but admits that at times, he exceeds this limit."

 

Yes, it really is hard finding time when you have important things to blog about, particularly when that pesky day job can interfere with important blogging activities. (For the record, I allot myself more than 15 minutes a week for blogging.)