Monthly Archives: July 2004

Mutual Fund Cases In Settlement Talks

The parties in the mutual fund trading practices cases, which have been consolidated in the D. of Md., are in settlement negotiations. The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article (subscrip. required) exploring the ramifications of the mutual funds’ agreement to pay $2.5 billion to settle with the SEC and state regulators. Almost all of these funds will go to mutual fund investors (in part because of the Sarbanes-Oxley provisions allowing the SEC to distribute penalties it obtains to injured investors), which is likely to reduce any settlement in the private lawsuits. (The 10b-5 Daily has posted about the cases frequently, most recently about the lead plaintiff contest.)

Quote of note: “Attorneys for the mutual-fund companies have cited the settlement agreements in their defense, which by some measures total more than the alleged damages. The ‘plaintiffs are tilling a plowed field,’ lawyers for Janus wrote in a court filing.”

Quote of note II: “The plaintiffs’ attorneys are likely to contend in amended complaints due later this month that the fund companies need to prove that they are fully compensating investors for the harm done by the trading. Some of the lawsuits are seeking the return of fund-management fees on the theory that the managers violated their fiduciary duty to investors, an issue not directly addressed by the SEC settlements.”

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog

The Big Breakup In Review

The New York Times had a long feature article in its Sunday edition on the breakup of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, widely recognized as the leading plaintiffs’ securities class action firm. The article discusses a number of topics, including the history of Milberg Weiss, the PSLRA, and the recent corporate scandals.

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog

More On Dura

The Financial Times has an article on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant cert in the Dura Pharmaceuticals case and address the issue of loss causation. The article also discusses the potential impact on the research analyst cases.

Quote of note: “The Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the Dura case until 2005; an appeal in the Merrill Lynch case is due to begin in New York next month, although some lawyers believe that ruling may be put off until after the Supreme Court acts.”

Disclosure: The author of The 10b-5 Daily is quoted in the article.

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog

D&O Insurance Rates Falling

Last year, there was a great deal of concern over the rising costs of directors and officers (“D&O”) insurance. According to an article in the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal (via MSNBC), however, the pendulum has swung the other way. Rates began declining in April of this year and “now many companies are saving between 18 percent and 50 percent.” The article attributes most of the decline to rate competition caused by new underwriters entering the market. (Thanks to the Securities Law Beacon for the link.)

Quote of note: “Those getting the biggest break are stable, middle-market public companies, between $500 million and $1 billion in market cap. This group was hit as hard as anyone when D&O rates started increasing in 2001. Until rates started easing earlier this year, some companies saw increases as high as 300 percent.”

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog

Class Action Reform Stalled Again

The Associated Press reports that the Class Action Fairness Act will not be voted on in the U.S. Senate this legislative year, becoming the “victim of election-year skirmishing between the two parties.” Proponents of the bill were unable to get enough votes to invoke cloture today after Senate Majority Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) refused to allow consideration of various unrelated amendments.

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog

The Wonderful World Of Rule 10b5-1

To what extent are individual stock trading plans (entered into pursuant to SEC Rule 10b5-1) helpful in defending against private securities fraud claims? At least one court, the N.D. of Cal. in the Monterey Pasta case, has suggested that the use of a stock trading plan may allow a defendant to negate any inference of fraudulent intent based on his stock sales because the sales were pre-scheduled. As more company executives implement these plans, the issue is likely to gather steam.

The author of The 10b-5 Daily, along with one of his colleagues, has an article on the topic – “Individual Trading Plans Can Help Defend Securities Fraud Claims” – in the most recent edition of Compliance Week (July 7).

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog

Senate Debates Class Action Reform

The U.S. Senate finally is debating the Class Action Fairness Act , but its passage may be derailed by unrelated amendments. The Associated Press and Reuters have reports on today’s action.

Quote of note (Associated Press): “Democrats are demanding a vote on raising the minimum wage from the $5.15 an hour to $7 over the next few years. They also want a vote on fighting global warming and on extending an assault weapon ban that is to expire this year. Hawaii’s two Democratic senators are pushing legislation that would recognize native Hawaiians as a governing entity. Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., are trying to add a proposal that would give temporary legal status to undocumented farm workers.”

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog

Bank Of America Settles Enron-Related Claims

Bank of America Corporation (NYSE:BAC) announced on Friday the preliminary settlement of the claims brought against the company as part of the Enron securities class action pending in the S.D. of Texas. Bank of America has agreed to pay $69 million. It is the second settlement in the Enron case, following the July 2002 settlement by Arthur Andersen’s international entities.

Bank of America was sued under the Securities Act based on its role as an underwriter for certain Enron and Enron-related debt offerings. According to a press release from the University of California, the lead plaintiff in the case, Bank of America’s payment will be more than 50% of its potential damage exposure.

News coverage of the settlement includes articles from the Associated Press, Bloomberg, and Reuters.

Leave a comment

Filed under Enron, Settlement

Appealing a SLUSA Remand

The Second and Ninth Circuits previously have held that a district court’s decision to remand a case that has been removed under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) is not appealable. In a decision issued this week, the Seventh Circuit has disagreed.

SLUSA generally prohibits the bringing of a securities class action based on state law in state court. The defendants are permitted to remove the case to federal district court for a determination on whether the case is preempted by the statute. If so, the district court must dismiss the case; if not, the district court must remand the case back to state court.

A remand based on a district court’s decision that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over a case cannot be reviewed on appeal. In Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 2004 WL 1470350 (7th Cir. June 29, 2004), however, the Seventh Circuit found that this general proposition is inapplicable to a case removed and remanded under SLUSA. The Supreme Court “has observed that a court lacks ‘subject-matter jurisdiction’ only when Congress has not authorized the federal judiciary to resolve the sort of issue presented by the case (or the Constitution forbids adjudication).” In contrast, SLUSA expressly authorized the district court to accept the removal of the Kircher case and “[o]nly after making the substantive decision that Congress authorized it to make [i.e., whether the case was preempted] did the district court remand.” This means that the district court had “no adjudicatory competence to do more,” the Seventh Circuit concluded, not that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, a SLUSA remand may be appealed.

Holding: Appeal will proceed to briefing and a decision on the merits.

Quote of note: “Both the second and ninth circuits were mesmerized by the word ‘jurisdiction’ and did not see the difference between a case that never should have been removed and a case properly removed and remanded only when the federal job is done.”

Quote of note II: “Appellate consideration of what amounts to a venue dispute slows things down to little good end, for the state court is competent to address the merits. SLUSA means, however, that one specific substantive decision in securities litigation must be made by the federal rather than the state judiciary. Appellate review of decisions under [SLUSA] will promote accurate and consistent implementation of that statute, at little cost in delay beyond what the authorized removal itself creates.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate Monitor