Another Subprime-Related Securities Lawsuit Dismissal: In yet another subprime-related securities class action lawsuit decision in defendants’ favor, on July 29, 2009, District of Connecticut Judge Stefan Underhill granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the securities lawsuit pending against CBRE Realty Finance and certain of its directors and officers. A copy of the opinion can be found here. Background regarding the case can be found here.

 

As reflected in Alison Frankel’s July 30, 2009 article about the decision in The American Lawyer Daily (here), the court’s order in the CBRE Realty case may be particularly noteworthy because the plaintiffs’ complaint asserts claims under the ’33 Act, in connection with which the plaintiffs would not have to plead scienter or even loss causation in order to survive a motion to dismiss — they only need to plead a material misrepresentation or omission.

 

In his July 29 order, Judge Underhill found that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled that the alleged misrepresentations or omissions were material. The plaintiffs had alleged that in connection with company’s IPO, the company’s offering documents had not adequately disclosed the risk of default in connection with two Maryland condominium conversion projects known as Triton. Judge Underhilll concluded that plaintiffs had failed to allege that there was not sufficient collateral to back the $51 million loan to Triton.

 

Judge Underhill’s ruling does not indicate whether or not it is with or without prejudice; however, he did order the court clerk to close the file.

 

I have added the CBRE decision to my register of subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuit dismissal motion outcomes, which can be accessed here.

 

Still More Bank Failures: In case you missed it, this past Friday night, the FDIC closed five more banks, bringing the year to date total number of bank failures to 69. The FDIC has taken control of 32 banks just since June 19, 2009. An August 1, 2009 Bloomberg article detailing the latest bank closures can be found here.

 

The most recent round of bank closures continues the trend concentration of recent bank closures within the community banks. Four of the five latest bank closures involved institutions that had assets of under $1 billion. Of the 69 banks that have closed this year, 59 have had assets under $1 billion.

 

The signs are that the bank closures will continue for some time to come. The July 31, 2009 Wall Street Journal reported (here) that banking regulators have already entered at least 285 memoranda of understanding with banking institutions this year, on pace for nearly 600 by year end, compared with 399 for the full year last year. While the MOUs are designed to try to direct the institutions away from closure, the sheer number of agreements is a reflection of the difficult circumstances that many banking institutions are facing.

 

The FDIC’s complete list of banking institutions that have failed since October 2000 can be found here.

 

Another Madoff-Related Insurance Coverage Action: In an earlier post (here), I noted the arrival of the Madoff-related insurance coverage litigation and suggested there would be much more similar coverage litigation ahead. Another Madoff-related coverage lawsuit has now arrived.

 

On July 20, 2009, Blezak Black filed an action (here) in New Jersey (Camden County) Superior Court against its crime insurers. The plaintiff alleges to have invested over $13 million with Madoff, which it lost. The plaintiffs’ crime insurers have denied coverage for the claim. The plaintiff’s complaint alleges breach of contract and seeks a judicial declaration of coverage.

 

I have added this lawsuit to my register of Madoff-related insurance coverage litigation, which can be found in Table V of my register of Madoff lawsuits. The register can be accessed here.

 

Special thanks to a loyal reader for providing a copy of the latest Madoff-related insurance coverage lawsuit complaint.

 

For some time, I have been asserting (refer here, for example) that increasing levels of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement activity represents an important development in the world of D&O insurance. During a conversation at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting in Chicago this past week, a senior claims executive from one of the leading D&O insurers expressed skepticism to me on this topic, essentially suggesting that D&O insurance doesn’t have anything to do with FCPA enforcement.

 

It is certainly true that fines and penalties imposed as a result of an FCPA violation would not be covered under the typical D&O insurance policy. But in many instances, defense costs incurred in defending against the enforcement action, which could be quite substantial, are likely to be covered under many D&O policies, so even just to that extent, increased FCPA enforcement activity could represent a significant D&O insurance development.

 

But perhaps even more significant for D&O insurance purposes than expenses incurred in defense of the enforcement activity itself is the exposure presented by the possibility of a follow-on civil lawsuit. As I have previously noted (most recently here), a separate civil action by shareholders or others is an increasingly frequent accompaniment of the FCPA enforcement activity. A recently filed case provides the latest example of this phenomenon.

 

On July 23, 2009, investors in Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd. filed a securities lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas against the company, certain of its current and former directors and officers, and the foundation that owned the company prior to its September 2005 IPO. The investors’ complaint can be found here.

 

Panalpina is a Swiss company which the complaint alleges has "substantial operations in the Southern District of Texas." The complaint describes the company as "the market leader in freight forwarding services for the oil and gas industry." The complaint alleges that the company "concealed" that its Nigerian operations "depended on bribes to customs agents in Nigeria," in violation of the FCPA. The complaint further alleges that in its public reports the company "has essentially conceded its violations of the FCPA."

 

The complaint further alleges that when the illegal practices were revealed, the company "was forced to cease them," and its financial results and share price were "materially and negatively impacted." The complaint alleges that since disclosing its illegal activities in Nigeria on July 24, 2007, and subsequent disclosures regarding the material impact of the Nigerian business, the company’s common stock has lost over 78% of its value.

 

The complaint alleges violations of the Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Act; Common Law Fraud; Aiding and Abetting Common Law Fraud; and Negligent Misrepresentation.

 

There are several interesting things about this new complaint. First, the case is an example of the ways in which FCPA-related activity can result in, for example, securities litigation against a company and its directors and officers. Subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable coverage, the expense of defending this kind of claim, as well as any subsequent settlement or judgment, would likely by covered by the typical D&O insurance policy. This case is just the latest example of how the growing FCPA enforcement activity represents a significant development from a D&O claims perspective.

 

But there are other interesting aspects of this suit, separate and apart form this primary consideration. Among other things, the complaint does not appear to be brought as a class action lawsuit. Rather, the action appears to have been brought solely on behalf of four apparently related investment partnerships, based in Connecticut and in the Cayman Islands.

 

The absence of class action allegations could be due to the fact that though Panalpina is a publicly traded company, its shares do not trade on any U.S. exchanges. (Its publicly traded shares trade only on the Swiss Exchange.) As a foreign domiciled company whose shares trade only on a foreign exchange, many of its shareholders likely are also domiciled outside the U.S., and so an action on behalf of a class of Panalpina shareholders could present a classic example of the f-cubed claimant problem (that is, foreign investors who bought their shares in a foreign company on a foreign exchange). Though the named plaintiffs include at least on foreign domiciled fund, several of the named plaintiffs are based in Connecticut and thus to that extent the f-cubed problem may be averted.

 

There may yet be some interesting jurisdictional questions in this case. Not only is the company foreign domiciled, and not only are its shares traded elsewhere, but the supposed bribery took place outside the U.S. And, without plumbing the depths of the factual allegations, it would seem that many of the alleged misrepresentations took place outside the U.S., notwithstanding the fact that the company may have substantial U.S. operations. The case seems to present circumstances quite analogous to the facts involved in the securities suit against National Australia Bank case (refer here), in which the Second Circuit ultimately concluded that the U.S. courts lacked subject jurisdiction over the matter.

 

Jurisdictional issues notwithstanding, this case in and of itself represents yet another example of a recurring phenomenon, one that I think will continue to gain importance in the months ahead, as a result of increasing FCPA enforcement activity.

 

The latest information regarding the increasing levels of FCPA enforcement can be found here.

 

In a July 31, 2009 report , Advisen became the latest group to confirm that securities litigation declined in the second quarter of 2009, noting in its report entitled "Securities Litigation Drops in Q2 2009" (here) that securities lawsuit filings "fell off in the second quarter from the frantic first quarter." Advisen’s July 31, 2009 press release describing its study can be found here.

 

But while the Advisen report is consistent with the report released earlier by Cornerstone Research (refer here), NERA Economic Consulting (refer here), as well as my own prior report (here), the Advisen report takes a slightly different approach to the topic and as a result contributes an important additional perspective.

 

It is absolutely critical to note at the outset that in using the term "securities lawsuit," the Advisen report is describing a category broader than just securities class action litigation. In addition to the securities class action litigation, the Advisen report uses the term "securities lawsuit" to include shareholder derivative litigation; breach of fiduciary duty litigation; "securities fraud" litigation, which includes regulatory actions brought by the SEC; as well as other kinds of litigation.

 

Using this broad definition, the Advisen reports that there were 121 "securities lawsuit" filings in the second quarter, down from 212 in the record-setting first quarter. Overall the first half "securities lawsuit" filings were within although slightly below historical norms.

 

The Advisen report notes that there were 37 new securities class action lawsuit filings in the second quarter, down from 70 in the first quarter. The 107 first half securities class action lawsuit filings would translate into 214 filings on an annualized basis, "in line with most recent years."

 

In speculating on the reasons for the first half decline, the Advisen report comments that the first half filings seem to have been "frontloaded" into the first quarter of the year. The report also states that "the second quarter could represent a lull in litigation activity while law firms worked on the flood of suits from the first quarter." The report does note (as I also observed, here) that "the first few weeks of the third quarter have seen a surge in securities suits once again."

 

The Advisen report also states that there were 41 settlements/awards in securities lawsuits in the second quarter of 2009, including the $2.9 billion jury award against Richard Scrushy in the HealthSouth shareholders’ derivative lawsuit. Taking the Scrushy award into account, the average settlement/award in the second quarter was $101.5 million, but if the Scrushy award is disregarded the average settlement/award drops to $60.0 million. The average securities class action settlement in the second quarter was $74.5 million, a quarterly average amount the report describes as "quite high."

 

The report has a number of other interesting observations, many of which have been noted in the previously released reports, including the concentration of the litigation activity in the financial sector; the increasing level of litigation involving foreign domiciled companies; and the elevated levels of activity involving the Ponzi scheme allegations.

 

Advisen Webinar: Advisen will be hosting a free webinar to discuss the findings in its second quarter report on August 3, 2009 at 11 am EDT. I will be participating in the call along with David Bradford and John Molka of Advisen, Randy Hein of Chubb and Tripp Sheehan of Marsh. For further information about the call and to register, refer here.

 

About Those July Securities Filings: The Advisen report mentions that in the first month of the third quarter, securities class action lawsuit filings seem to have ramped up again. Just to detail that point, by my count, there were at least 16 new securities class action lawsuits filed in July, which is a filing rate that is back at historical levels.

 

With respect to the new July filings, it is also interesting to note how few of these new lawsuits were in the financial sector. While five of the new lawsuits involve financial companies, the other eleven did not, which is sort of the exact opposite of the equivalent proportions for the first half of the year. Of the eleven new suits involving nonfinancial companies, as many as seven involved companies involved in the life sciences sector.

 

The other interesting thing about these July filings is how many of them involve purported class periods ending dates that are well in the past, as I previously noted here. To cite the most recent example, the purported class period in the July 30, 2009 securities class action lawsuit filing against International Game Technology (refer here) ends on October 30, 2008.

 

The July filings seem to me to be consistent with the hypothesis that the downturn in securities class action filings during the second quarter was just a temporary lull. In addition, the July filings are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the plaintiffs’ lawyers are running out of targets to sue. Rather, the July filings suggest to me, as I have speculated elsewhere, that the plaintiffs’ lawyers ran into a logjam during the second quarter and as they ran up a backlog of cases to be filed against nonfinancial companies. All of the evidence so far in the third quarter is entirely consistent with this final hypothesis.

 

One Thing the Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Were Up to During the First Half: As I also noted elsewhere, though the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ may not have been filing new securities class action lawsuits during the second quarter, they were by no means idle. A July 31, 2009 press release (here) by the Tramont Guerra & Nunez firm, issued in response to the various published reports regarding the decline in second quarter filings, provides some insight into at least one particular way the plaintiffs’ lawyers were otherwise occupied during the second quarter.

 

According to the press release, Finra’s dispute resolution statistics show an 82% increase in the arbitration claims for the first half of the year, with the majority of claims filed for breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation. Finra’s statistics can be found here. As I said, the plaintiffs’ lawyers were not idle.

 

On July 27, 2009, NERA Economic Consulting became the latest to publish a mid-year analysis of the year to date securities litigation developments. The NERA report, written by Stephanie Plancich and Svetlana Starykh, is entitled "Recent Trends in Securities Class Actions Litigation: 2009 Mid-Year Update," and can be found here. The NERA Report joins the earlier mid-year report of Cornerstone Research (refer here). My own mid-year review can be found here.

 

The NERA report seemingly reports a higher number of securities class action filings than the earlier reports, although the seeming difference requires some explanation; on closer review, the apparent difference arguably becomes more apparent than real. In addition to an analysis of the first half lawsuit filings, the NERA report also includes a review of the first half securities lawsuit settlements as well.

 

For the first six months of 2009, NERA reports that there were 127 new securities class action filings. This tally is quite a bit higher than the 87 first half filings that Cornerstone reported in its recent study of first half filings. However the difference may be attributable to a difference in counting methodology. As explained in footnote 2 of the NERA report, "unless cases are consolidated, we report all filings potentially related to the same alleged fraud, if the complaints are filed in different Circuits or if different securities are alleged to be affected by the fraud." Since many of the complaints filed in the first half involve duplicated allegations with multiple complaints filed in different circuits, NERA’s reported number of filings is quite a bit higher than other published reports. NERA notes that "if cases are ultimately consolidated, the data are adjusted." Hence, my statement that the seeming difference in the number of filings may be more apparent than real.

 

The NERA report notes that the first half filings are on an annualized pace of more than 250 filings, which would be more than in 2008. Consistent with earlier reports, the NERA report does note that the number of filings declined in the second quarter. The NERA report also notes that the first half filings were largely driven by the credit crisis cases and new lawsuits relating to the Ponzi schemes. Over 40% of first half filings were credit crisis related and over 20% were related to the Ponzi scheme allegations. About 67% of first half filings named at least one financial company as a primary co-defendant.

 

In addition, the NERA report notes that accounting firms have been named as co-defendants in 17.3% of filings, which represents a significant increase from prior years. Cases against foreign domiciled defendants have also increased, with 19 cases or 15% of all cases naming a foreign company as a primary defendant, the highest percentage since the passage of the PSLRA.

 

In terms of drivers affecting the pace of securities class action lawsuit filings, the report confirms that the filing rate is correlated to overall market volatility, but the relationship is "not tight" and in fact volatility accounts for only about 28% of the variability in quarterly filing levels.

 

In looking at case resolutions, the report attempts to determine how long on average it takes for these cases to be resolved. Looking back at the cases filed in 2000, the report finds that on average, the time to resolution is 2.9 year, with an average time for dismissals of 1.7 years and settlements it was 3.5 years. Most of the more recent cases, particularly those related to the subprime meltdown and the credit crisis still remain only in their earliest stages, and so it is too early to tell how these cases ultimately will be resolved.

 

In analyzing case outcomes overtime, the report finds that a higher fraction of cases have been dismissed since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in Dura Pharmaceuticals, consistent with the hypothesis that defendants are more likely to prevail in a motion to dismiss as a result of that decision.

 

With respect to settlements so far this year, the NERA report finds that the median securities class action settlement is $8 million, which is about the same as in 2008. Median values have remained very consistent for the past five years.

 

The average securities class action settlement during the first half of the year has been $43 million, about even with last year’s average and slightly below the average of $49.6 million for the period 2003 to 2009. The high average relative to the median is driven by large outlier settlements. If the settlements above $1 billion are removed, the average for the period 2003 to 2009 drops to $27.6 million, although the year to date average for 2009 settlements remains at $43 million. A substantial number of settlements this year have been over $100 though less than $1 billion.

 

Median investor losses for cases filed in 2009 ($600 million) are much higher than for cases settled in 2009 ($289 million). Since settlement amounts traditionally have been "strongly correlated" to investor losses, this would seem to suggest that the 2009 cases would be much higher than more recently settled cases. However, given that the companies affected by the credit crisis "may no longer have …substantial resources to make …large settlement payouts" the traditional relationship of settlement amount to investor losses may or may not hold.

 

With the closure of a group of six interrelated Georgia banks this past Friday night, the state has now reclaimed the dubious distinction of as having the most failed banks of any state this year. With the addition of the most recent closures, there have now been 16 failed banks in Georgia this year, compared to 12 in Illinois, which had previously and for a brief period (refer here) led Georgia in the number of failed banks.

 

There were a total of seven bank closures on July 24, 2009, which brings the year to date total number of closures to 64. The pace of bank failures has definitely picked up in the last several weeks. There have been 27 bank closures just in the five-week period since June 19, which is more that the number of banks (25) that failed in all of 2008.

 

The six Georgia banks that filed Friday were all subsidiaries of Security Bank Corp., which had been Georgia’s fourth-largest lender. The six units were technically six separate banks, although according to the Atlanta Business Chronicle (here), "the banks essentially operated as the same institution."

 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution described the rise and fall of the holding company (here) as "a stark symbol of the state’s banks woes." The bank made a "fatal push" into the Atlanta residential market in 2005 and 2006. The bank "tripled in size" between 2005 and 2009. The bank lost $243 million last year, and at the end of the first quarter of 2009 reported $277 in "severely delinquent loans that bank had given up hope of collecting on."

 

There have now been 22 different states that have had at least one bank failure this year. Beyond Georgia and Illinois, the other states with high numbers of bank failures include California (8) and Florida (3). Generally, the banks that have failed so far this year have been smaller banks; of the 64 banks that have failed so far this year, 55 have had assets under $1 billion. The FDIC’s complete list of all banks that have failed since October 2000 can be found here.

 

Relatively few of the bank failures involve publicly traded institutions. In its recent mid-year report on securities litigation (here), Cornerstone Research noted that of the 45 banks that had failed through June 30, 2009, only 21 involved publicly traded companies, and only one failed banks had been involved in securities class action lawsuits this year.

 

My earlier post analyzing the number of failed banks in Georgia can be found here.

 

Break in the Action: The D&O Diary will be on an intermittent publication schedule for the next few days. The "normal" publication schedule will resume the week of August 10.

 

In a July 15, 2009 motion (here), the plaintiff in the subprime-related securities class action lawsuit involving RAIT Financial Trust moved for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of the case. According to the company’s May 27, 2009 filing on Form 8-K (here), the parties entered a preliminary agreement on May 26 2009 to settle the case for a cash payment of $32 million, to be funded entirely by the company’s D&O insurers.

As reflected in greater detail here, the company was first sued in August 2007 in a securities class action lawsuit alleging that in the offering materials accompanying the company’s January 2007 IPO as well as subsequent statements, the defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about the company’s credit underwriting, exposure to investments in debt securities, loan loss reserves and other financial items.

In a December 22, 2008 ruling, Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Legrome Davis substantially denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Among other things, Judge Davis’s ruling was noteworthy for its acceptance of the "core business operations" theory in concluding that the plaintiffs had adequately pled scienter, as discussed at greater length here.

The RAIT settlement joins the recent Accredited Home Lenders settlement (refer here) as subprime-related securities lawsuits in which the cases settled after the motions to dismiss were denied. The $22 million settlement in the Accredited case together with the $32 million settlement in this case suggest that companies (or at least their D&O insurers) may face significant financial consequences for losing the dismissal motion in these cases. These settlements and the recent $30.5 million settlement in the Beazer Homes case also start to create an impression that overall, the subprime and credit crisis cases might prove to be very expensive to resolve.

I have in any event added the RAIT settlement to my register of the subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuit resolutions, which can be accessed here.

Very special thanks to a loyal reader for calling my attention to the RAIT settlement.

As I have shown (here) and has been detailed by others (here), the number of securities class action lawsuits declined during the first half of 2009 compared both to last year and to historical norms. There is a lot that might be said about the decline and its causes. However, the mainstream media (refer, for example, here) has latched onto the message that the number of securities suits is declining because the plaintiffs are "running out of people to sue."

 

Let’s be honest — fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and plaintiffs’ lawyers make their living filing lawsuits. The fish and the birds can be counted upon to continue their traditional activities, and so can the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The very idea that the plaintiffs have run out of targets is a flawed conclusion built on a faulty premise.

 

Before I get started on this topic, I think it would be useful to review why this question matters. Once before, the idea circulated that the securities class action plaintiffs’ lawyers were going out of business. This hypothesis turned out to be very wrong and it proved to be a very expensive mistake.

 

After the PSLRA was enacted at the end of 1995, some D&O insurers assumed the statute’s passage would mean that many fewer securities lawsuits would be filed, and so they slashed their insurance pricing. The marketplace followed. When securities litigation ramped back up, the D&O insurance industry suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. The industry paid a lot of tuition to learn that what plaintiffs’ lawyers do is file lawsuits. Given how expensive the lesson was, it would seem unwise to start assuming now that anything has changed.

 

But with respect to the recent decline in securities lawsuits, let’s at least get the facts straight. The number of lawsuits did not decline during the entire first six months of the year. During the period January through April, the number of new securities lawsuit filings was more or less at normal levels. The drop took place in May and June. Now, looking at the ebb and flow of securities lawsuit filings during the last 14 years, there arguably is nothing noteworthy about a two-month decline. It could just be a blip. It may or may not continue; only time will tell. It does seem important (to me at least) that so far in July, there have already been at least twelve new securities lawsuits, more than were filed in either May or June.

 

The other thing about the first half of 2009 is that it was not as if the plaintiffs’ lawyers were idle — they were just otherwise occupied. Among other things, they were busy filing lawsuits related to Madoff, the Stanford Financial Group and other Ponzi schemes. Indeed, my list of Madoff-related lawsuits (which can be accessed here) now runs to some 23 pages, with more than 40 new cases filed during May and June.

 

This other extensive litigation activity is highly relevant, because of the similarity to what happened back in the period mid-2005 to mid-2007. That was the period when there was a sustained "lull" in new securities class action lawsuit filings. During that period as well, the plaintiffs’ lawyers were also otherwise engaged. Then, they were busy filing options backdating-related shareholders’ derivative lawsuits, eventually filing 168 of them (as shown here).

 

That prior "lull" in new securities lawsuit filings motivated some observers to speculate that the move to lower securities litigation levels might represent a "permanent" change. Subsequent history has shown that in fact there was no permanent change, and indeed the securities lawsuit activity returned with a vengeance.

 

Of course, it is possible that plaintiffs’ lawyers have indeed run out of targets and that lower level of new securities class action filings will persist going forward. Only time will tell. Just based on what history has shown, though, both after the passage of the PSLRA and after the so-called "lull," I think it would be unwise to bet that hereafter the plaintiffs lawyers will file fewer securities lawsuits.

 

My own theory about why the number of lawsuits has dipped is that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have been busy, not just with the Madoff lawsuits, but also dealing with the extraordinary number of lawsuits they previously filed in connection with the subprime meltdown and credit crisis. Many of these lawsuits are uncommonly complicated and they have in many cases entered procedurally demanding stages.

 

The main reason I believe that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have just been jammed up is that I think there is evidence that they are dealing with a backlog of cases, a point that I have made before (here). Recent filings even further reinforce the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ lawyers are now starting to work off a backlog.

 

Many of the recent filings have proposed class periods that are well in the past, sometimes years in the past. For example, the securities lawsuit filed on July 14, 2009 against Ambassador Group (refer here) has a proposed class period cutoff date of October 23, 2007. The securities lawsuit filed on July 17, 2009 against Bare Escentuals (refer here) has proposed class period cutoff date of November 26, 2007. The securities lawsuit filed on July 22, 2009 against Accuray (refer here) proposes a class period cutoff of August 19, 2008. Other recent filings though not quite as superannuated involve class period cutoff dates that well over six months past (refer, for example, here).

 

If you notice from the cases I have listed above and in my prior post, these cases not only involve a time gap, but they also are all outside the financial sector. It seems as if the plaintiffs lawyers have been so preoccupied with the race to the courthouse in lawsuits against the financial sector, they are just now getting around to filing the cases against the other kinds of companies.

 

The way I look at it, the plaintiffs’ lawyers have not had a shortage of targets, they have just had a shortage of time. But evidence suggests that they are getting caught up and they are now getting around to working off the backlog that has been accumulating. The one thing I know for certain is that they will continue to file lawsuits. Consider how reliable the birds and fishes are, and I think you will see what I mean.

 

One line of analysis that does give me pause is the suggestion that the lawsuit filings declined because of diminished stock market volatility. According to this theory, there is a correlation between overall market volatility and the level of securities lawsuit activity. This theory may have something to it; it is certainly the case that an individual lawsuit is directly related to the target company’s experience of volatility in its own share price. If this market volatility theory is true and if the lower volatility persists, then we could be in for a period of lower numbers of security lawsuits. We had a lull before, we could certainly have one again.

 

Because of the possibility that persistent lower market volatility might mean reduced lawsuit filings for awhile, I am not making any absolute predictions. I am just saying that I wouldn’t make any bets based on the assumption that the plaintiffs lawyers have run out of people to sue.

 

By the SEC’s own account, an enforcement action the SEC initiated on July 22, 2009 represents the first occasion on which it has used the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s "clawback" provision to recover compensation from an individual not otherwise alleged to have violated the securities laws. While this type of action apparently was contemplated by the statute, it has never been pursued before and it raises some interesting questions.

 

As reflected in the SEC’s July 22, 2009 press release (here), the SEC enforcement action charges Maynard L. Jenkins, the former CEO of CSK Auto, with violation of Section 304 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, the statute’s compensation clawback provision. The action seeks to compel Jenkins to reimburse CSK Auto for the more than $4 million he received in bonuses and stock sale profits "while CSK was committing accounting fraud." A copy of the SEC’s complaint can be found here. (Hat tip to the Courthouse News Service for the complaint.)

 

In May 2009, the SEC brought a settled enforcement action against CSK for filing false financial statements for fiscal years 2002 though 2004. The SEC has also brought a separate civil enforcement action against four CSK officials, but Jenkins is not among the officials that the SEC is pursuing.

 

Section 304 does provide that if a company restates its financials, then the company’s CEO and CFO "shall reimburse" the company any bonus compensation received during the 12 months following the restated period, as well as any stock sale profits earned during those twelve months.

 

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

 

Professor Larry Ribstein criticizes the SEC’s use of the statute this way in a post on his Ideoblog (here), for "punishing business executives even when they are not accused of making a mistake." Jenkins undoubtedly will attempt to challenge the SEC’s attempt to use the statue this way. This provision has never been challenged on this basis before, so it will be interesting to see whether it withstands the legal challenge.

 

The SEC’s use of the statute in this way will undoubtedly add yet another item to the long list of criticisms of Section 304. As noted here, the statute previously has been criticized, among other reasons, because it lacks a private right of action; because it can only be used against the CEO and CFO, but not other corporate officials; and because it is only available in the event of a restatement, but not for other accounting discrepancies. Now it will be criticized as well because it can, if the SEC’s position withstands judicial scrutiny, effect a forfeiture without a requirement of fault, involvement or knowledge of the circumstances requiring the restatement.

 

To be sure, the logic of the statute is that since the financials were restated, the compensation was never earned in the first place. But litigation has its costs, and the burden an executive hit with a suit like this must endure goes beyond just the compensation he or she might be required to return. Among other things, defending against an SEC enforcement action can be extremely costly.

 

An executive facing an action like this might well seek to have his or her defense expenses paid by the company’s D&O insurer. But there could be problems with that as well. There would likely be no coverage under the typical D&O policy for any returned compensation, among other reasons because of the standard exclusion for claims for any "profit or advantage" to which the executive was "not legally entitled."

 

Many of these exclusions are written with a broad preamble (that is, precluding coverage for any loss "based upon, arising out of, or in any way relating to"), which some carriers might attempt to rely upon to preclude coverage not just for the returned compensation but for costs incurred in defending against the claim, even before a liability finding. While this interpretation of the policy would be highly suspect, the possibility of this interpretation highlights the need to try to revise the exclusion to require an actual judicial determination of the absence of "legal entitlement" to the profit or advantage before the exclusion’s preclusive effect is triggered. This revision may help to ensure that if an executive is hit with one of these suits that there is at least insurance coverage available for the executive to mount a defense.

 

An interesting July 22, 2009 Bloomberg article discussing the case can be found here. The article quotes a number of commentators with a variety of perspectives on the SEC’s action.

 

As reflected in a recently released and detailed analysis of audit firms’ current litigation and prior lawsuit settlements, the audit firs’ litigation challenges are a serious and growing problem. The July 2009 presentation by Mark Cheffers, the CEO of Audit Analytics, is entitled "Accounting Professional Liability: Scorecards and Commentary" and can be found here. According to a July 22, 2009 Compliance Week article (here), Cheffers presented the slides at a recent litigation conference cosponsored by the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute.

 

The presentation materials reflect very detailed information about the major accounting firms’ litigation. Among other things, the presentation aggregates the top 50 accounting malpractice settlements since 1999. The data show that Ernst & Young has paid the largest amount in malpractice settlements during that period, totaling $1.92 billion. KPMG follows with settlements totaling $1.42 billion, followed by PricewaterhouseCoopers at $1.27 billion and Delotte & Touche at $1.25 billion.

 

As detailed in the presentation, the audit firms now face huge potential exposure from the growing numbers of lawsuits that have been filed against them in connection with the credit crisis and the Madoff scandal. Cheffers’ presentation lists the current litigation scorecard of cases that have been filed against the audit firms. According to the Compliance Week article, Cheffers said at the conference that these lawsuits filed so far are "likely just the beginning."

 

The presentation also shows the prevalence of going concern audit opinions, both in terms of percentage of all audit opinions and in absolute numerical terms. The presentation shows that in 2008 going concern opinions, both in percentage terms and in absolute numbers were at their highest level in the past decade

 

There may well be other places where this kind of information about audit firm liability exposure has previously been compiled, but this is the first time I have seen the information presented this comprehensively. The information presented in the slides is fascinating and one can only hope that Cheffers will continue to update the information and continue to make it publicly available.

 

 The 2009 securities lawsuit filings have been characterized by an overall decline in filing activity, particularly in the second quarter, as well as the continued prevalence of lawsuits against financial sector issuer-defendants, according to a July 20, 2009 study by the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with Cornerstone Research. The study, which is entitled "Securities Class Action Filings: 2009 Mid-Year Assessment" can be found here. A July 20 press release describing the study can be found here. My own prior study of the first half securities lawsuit filings can be found here.

 

According to the Cornerstone study, there were 87 securities class action lawsuits filed in the first half of 2009, which represents a 22.3 percent decline from the 112 securities suits that were filed in both the first half and the second half of 2008. The first half filings project to an annual filing rate of 174 securities class action, which would represent a 22.3 percent decrease from 2008 and an 11.7 percent decrease from the annual average for the 12 years ending in December 2008.

 

The drop in new filings was particularly pronounced in the second quarter of 2009, as only 35 of the 87 new filings occurred during the second quarter. The Cornerstone Report notes that over the same period, there was "a similarly dramatic decline" in the stock market volatility measured by the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index. The report also suggests that the "decline in market volatility raises the possibility of a return to the subdued levels of filing activity observed from the third quarter of 2005 to the second quarter of 2007."

 

Filings against companies in the financial sector predominated in the first half of 2009, as financial companies were named as defendants in 66.7 % of the first half filings. Slightly less than 50% of the first half filings were related to the credit crisis, as 42 of the 87 first half filings contained allegations related to the credit crisis.

 

The 2009 mid-year report contains a couple of new metrics. The first measures the number of unique issuers whose exchange-traded securities were involved in class action lawsuits. The metric shows that the number of lawsuits against unique exchange traded issuers has declined even more rapidly than the overall number of new lawsuits. The decrease is "driven by a large number of filings related to non-exchange trade securities and private companies" in the first half of 2009. These suits relate to Ponzi scheme allegations as well as other filings "related to mortgage-backed securities, preferred stock and open-ended mutual funds."

 

The other new metric in the mid-year report measures the number of filings against defendant corporations headquartered outside the United States. The metric shows that the number of suits against non-U.S. companies has been gradually increasing over the years, from only 6.8 percent of all filings during the period 1997 through 2003 to 13.8 percent in 2008. This upward trend continued in the first half of 2009, with 20.7 of all filings against non-U.S. companies, largely due to cases against foreign domiciled companies in the financial sector. Interestingly, this increase in litigation activity has coincided with a decrease in the share of foreign companies listed on the major U.S. exchanges.

 

In terms of the potential damages involved in the first half filings, the report’s detailed analysis shows that the 2009 filings are characterized by a decrease in losses associated with announcements at the ends of class periods and an increase in overall market capitalization losses for the entire class periods.

 

The report notes that since the end of 2008, there has been an "unprecedented" concentration of new Ponzi-scheme related filings. The Madoff scandal has resulted in five filings in the second half of 2008 and 15 in the first half of 2009, and there were four additional Ponzi scheme-related filings unrelated to Madoff in the first half of 2009.

 

The report concludes with an observation of the heightened number of bank failures during 2009, adding the observation that only 21 of the 45 banks that had failed through June 30, 2009 were publicly traded, and only one of the bank failures has resulted in a securities class action lawsuit.

 

The report’s new metric related to number of lawsuits against unique exchange-traded issuers is particularly useful for observers of public company litigation trends. Though the numerous lawsuits against private firms and mutual fund companies are interesting and important, those developments are less likely to affect the overall market for public company directors and officers liability insurance. In that respect, the Cornerstone report’s observation that the decline in lawsuits against unique publicly traded companies is even more pronounced than the overall decline in lawsuit filings is a particularly significant observation. The addition of this new metric is a particularly useful and welcome addition to Cornerstone’s reporting on litigation activity.

 

The report’s suggestion that the decline in lawsuits is linked to a decline in market volatility is also particularly interesting, as is the observation that lower volatility may mean a return to the low filing activity of the period mid-2005 through mid-2007. My own view, expressed in my prior post (here), is that the decline in lawsuit filing activity during the second quarter arose because plaintiffs’ lawyers found themselves in a logjam, due to the onslaught of Madoff-related litigation and the fact that many of the previously filed credit crisis cases had reached critical procedural stages.

 

The filings so far in July have in fact been characterized by the number of lawsuits outside the financial sector, many with class period ending dates considerably before the filing dates, which does suggest that plaintiffs’ lawyers are to a certain extent working off a backlog. Of course, the pace and nature of the second half filing activity overall remains to be seen.

 

ABA TIPS Panel: The Financial Collapse — What Caused It and How Will It Continue To Impact Corporations and Their Boards?: The American Bar Association Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section (TIPS) Task Force on Corporate Governance will hold this meeting at the ABA Building in Chicago on July 30, 2009 as part of the ABA Annual Meeting, to discuss the 2008 financial collapse and how corporations can manage risk throughout the remainder of the ongoing crisis.

 

I will be participating in this free session, which will be chaired by my good friend Kim Hogrefe from Chubb. The panel will also include Fiona Phillip of Howrey LLP and Dr. Faten Sabry of NERA Economic Consulting. The event will be followed by a reception. More information about the event, including event registration can be found here.