Monthly Archives: February 2005

That’s A Lot Of Underpants

Under the PSLRA, plaintiffs must plead facts creating a strong inference that the defendants acted with scienter (i.e., fraudulent intent) to survive a motion to dismiss. Several courts have found that the sheer size of an alleged financial fraud can support a finding of fraudulent intent. In a recent decision, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has disagreed.

In Fidel v. Farley, 2004 WL 2901274 (6th Cir. Dec. 16, 2004), the plaintiffs argued that the magnitude of the financial fraud allegedly perpetrated by Fruit of the Loom, including a write-down of over $220 million of inventory in 1999, supported an inference that the company’s auditors had acted with scienter. The court found that “[a]llowing an inference of scienter based on the magnitude of fraud ‘would eviscerate the principle that accounting errors alone cannot justify a finding of scienter.'” Moreover, the fact that Fruit of the Loom took the write-offs in 1999, “in no way implied that [the auditors] acted with scienter while auditing the 1998 financial data.”

Holding: Dismissal affirmed.

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate Monitor

What Is Sufficient Notice?

The PSLRA states that securities class action plaintiffs, within 20 days of filing a complaint, “shall cause to be published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service, a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class.” Although the standard practice is for the notice to be put out on a wire service, some plaintiffs/counsel have chosen to publish their notice in the print edition of a single publication (with the express intention, it has been argued, of limiting the number of lead plaintiff candidates).

A minor court split has developed over whether publishing notice in the print edition of a single publication is sufficient. Last year, a D. of Md. court found that the publication of a notice in the New York Times did not meet the PSLRA’s requirements. A recent decision from the E.D. of Pa., however, has held that the publication of a notice in the Investor’s Business Daily was sufficient.

Securities Litigation Watch has posted extensively on the subject and the Legal Intelligencer has an article on the E.D. of Pa. decision (which also found that the notice does not need to contain an extensive description of the case).

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog

Ex-WorldCom Directors’ Settlement Fails

Less than a month after it was announced, the settlement by ten former WorldCom outside directors of the securities class action claims against them has collapsed. The settlement was for $54 million, but it was the fact that $18 million of that sum was to be paid personally by the directors that led to extensive media commentary. According to an article (subscrip. req’d) in the Wall Street Journal, District Judge Cote (S.D.N.Y.) “rejected a provision that relates to how much the remaining defendants in the suit might have to pay if they lose the case.” Without that provision, the plaintiffs have chosen to withdraw from the settlement.

Leave a comment

Filed under Settlement, WorldCom

ConAgra Settles

ConAgra Foods, Inc. (NYSE: CAG) has announced the preliminary settlement of the securities class action pending against the company in the D. of Neb. The complaint, originally filed in 2001, alleged that the company had engaged in fraud by permitting its United Agri Products subsidiary to prematurely recognize revenue from sales where the delivery of the goods had not yet taken place. The case is perhaps best known for generating a notable appellate decision on loss causation and materiality. The settlement is for $14 million and is “largely covered by insurance.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Settlement