A recent decision in the long-running Merck securities litigation contains a pair of interesting holdings. In In re Merck & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation, 2012 WL 3779309 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2012), the court considered the impact of its rulings in a related individual suit on the securities class action.
(1) False or Misleading Statements – Can accurate financial statements be rendered false or misleading because the company fails to disclose ongoing business problems? Plaintiffs frequently bring claims based on these types of allegations, with mixed results in the courts. In Merck, the court found that this theory of liability “would expose a company to liability every time it reported previous successes without disclosing any and every reason, established or not, the company had for second-guessing the reported performance, be it a contemplated change in business strategy, dissension among company management or adverse information about a key product.” Accordingly, the court declined to find that the company’s earnings statements could have been rendered inaccurate by the company’s failure to disclose drug safety issues.
(2) Control Person Liability – Does a plaintiff have to adequately plead that the defendant was a “culpable participant” to move forward with a control person claim? The Merck court noted that other judges in the District of New Jersey have held that it is not necessary to provide factual support for this element. The court held that this position is no longer tenable, however, following the Supreme Court’s Iqbal decision, which clarified that a claim cannot survive a motion to dismiss unless “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Moreover, because pleading “culpable participation” is akin to pleading scienter, it is subject to the PSLRA’s heightened pleading standard. A plaintiff asserting a control person claim therefore “must plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the controlling person knew or should have known that the primary violator, over whom the person had control, was engaging in fraudulent conduct.”