Category Archives: Curiouser and Curiouser

Double Check

In a strange story, a court in the S.D.N.Y. has dismissed the lead plaintiff from a securities class action brought against Smith Barney Fund Management and Citigroup Global Markets because, after six years of litigation, it was revealed that the entity had not actually purchased the securities at issue. The lawsuit, originally filed in 2005, alleges various misrepresentations by an investment advisor for certain Smith Barney mutual funds, which later were acquired by Citigroup. According to counsel for the plaintiffs, the relevant brokerage documentation erroneously showed that the Operating Local 639 Annuity Trust Fund had invested in one of the relevant mutual funds (when, in reality, its investment was in a similarly named fund).

The court, in an apparently scathing decision, cited “epic failures” by the attorneys on both sides of the case in not investigating the issue earlier. For its part, “[h]ad Smith Barney simply checked its records, it would have avoided six years of sparring with a phantom opponent.” Bloomberg and the WSJ Law Blog have articles on the decision.

Leave a comment

Filed under Curiouser and Curiouser, Lead Plaintiff/Lead Counsel

No Reason To Make A Federal Case Out Of It

How do you know when a judge does not think much of your case? When the quips start flying around in her decision.

In City of Brockton Retirement System v. The Shaw Group Inc., 2008 WL 833943 (S.D.N.Y. March 18, 2008), District Judge Colleen McMahon addressed a securities class action brought after The Shaw Group was forced to restate its 2Q 2006 financials. In particular, the restatement resulted from two accounting errors: (a) an arithmetic error related to the computation of percent complete on one contract; and (b) a failure to account properly for a minority interest in a variable interest entity. The court dismissed the case based on the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately plead a strong inference of scienter (i.e., fraudulent intent) and made its overall feelings about the claims quite clear. Here are some of the more quotable lines:

(1) “Calling the failure to catch [the simple arithmetic error] a ‘failure of accounting controls’ makes it sound sinister, but it does not change the fundamental nature of the ‘failure’ – somebody forgot to check his/her work. This is not sinister at all. Mistakes like this happen a lot in the third grade, and sometimes they happen in public companies, too. There is no reason to make a federal case out of it.”

(2) “It may not be prudent as a business matter to have an accounting department that has a hard time keeping up with new information technology, but it is not a violation of the federal securities laws to do so.”

(3) “So none of the matters cited by plaintiffs admits of an inference of fraud. Plaintiffs argue, however, that zero plus zero plus zero plus zero plus zero adds up to something. In this, its arithmetic is as faulty as Shaw Group’s was.”

Thanks to an alert reader for sending in the decision.

Leave a comment

Filed under Curiouser and Curiouser, Motion To Dismiss Monitor

A Little Of This, A Little Of That

Three unusual recent decisions addressing the PSLRA’s discovery stay, appeals from the denial of a motion to dismiss, and prolixity in complaints:

(1) While the primary securities class action against Time Warner was settled last year, a consolidated action consisting of suits by institutional investors that opted out of the main case continues on. Moreover, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action have access to the approximately 14 million documents that Time Warner produced in the primary securities class action and related state court litigation. In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 1997704 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2006), the court addressed a “unique” request by the defendants to lift the PSLRA’s discovery stay to allow them to obtain discovery from the plaintiffs. Time Warner argued, and the court agreed, that the discovery stay should be lifted because “prohibiting Time Warner’s discovery of Plaintiffs while Plaintiffs are able to formulate their litigation and settlement strategy on the basis of the massive discovery Time Warner has already produced constitutes undue prejudice.”

(2) The denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final judgment in a securities class action and is normally not subject to appeal. Although a district court might certify an interlocutory appeal based on the existence of a novel and dispositive legal issue, whether the district court correctly found that the plaintiff met the heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA is not usually thought to meet that criteria. In Thompson v. Shaw Group, Inc., 2006 WL 2038025 (E.D. La. July 18, 2006), however, the district court certified its denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss for appeal, finding that “reasonable minds might disagree on the issue of whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied their pleading burden under the heightened standards for securities claims.” The court noted that an immediate appeal was justified because “a ruling favorable to Defendants on this issue would render years of discovery, enormous expenses incurred by the parties, and a trial on the merits unnecessary.”

(3) The modern securities class action complaint can be a massive tome, primarily because of the need to meet the PSLRA’s heightened pleading standards. That said, not every court appreciates getting so much reading material. In In re Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. Sec. Litig. 2006 WL 2192116 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2006), the court addressed a 147-page consolidated complaint that it believed was unnecessarily long. After clarifying the issues in the case at oral argument, the court granted leave to amend with the express condition that the amended complaint “not exceed fifty (50) pages in length.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Curiouser and Curiouser, Discovery Stay, Motion To Dismiss Monitor

Making Headlines

The notices put out by securities plaintiffs firms to announce the filing of a complaint tend to be fairly staid. At least one firm may be trying to liven them up (see here and here).

Leave a comment

Filed under Curiouser and Curiouser

Not Quite Right

The editors of the Jackson Clarion-Ledger are not pleased with the WorldCom settlements. Of course, they also appear to believe that Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase will be receiving, rather than providing, most of the settlement funds.

Quote of note: “But the settlement is top heavy: $2.58 billion to Citigroup and $2 billion to JPMorgan Chase & Co. with the rest divided among about 830,000 people and institutions. That’s small solace to the small investor, including those in Mississippi who trusted Ebbers.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Curiouser and Curiouser, WorldCom

Rome Was Sued In A Day

Securities class actions brought in U.S. courts by foreign investors? Lots of them. Securities class actions brought in U.S. courts against foreign companies? Commonplace. But how about a securities class action brought in a U.S. court against a foreign state? Now we’re talking.

In Aguayo v. Republic of Italy, 05 CV 7717 (S.D.N.Y.), filed last week, the plaintiff has brought a suit against Italy and the underwriters of its debt securities issued in this country. The complaint alleges that the relevant registration statements “understated Italy’s debt, so that Italy could report that it complied with the European Union requirement that debt be limited to 3% of gross domestic product.”

1 Comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog, Curiouser and Curiouser

When A Promotion Is Not Enough

Everything a CEO does can effect his company’s public disclosures. Regular readers will recall the case of the company that was forced to restate its CEO’s resume. A similar type of case was decided earlier this year.

In In re Ariba, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 608278 (N.D. Cal. March 16, 2005), the company failed to disclose that its outgoing CEO had personally, out of his own funds, paid another officer $10 million (plus $1.2 million in travel benefits and expenses) to assume the CEO position. Ariba was eventually forced to restate its financial statements to record the payments as capital contributions. In the resulting securities class action, the plaintiffs alleged that the payments were made to “create the false impression that Ariba was doing better than it was” and that “confidence in Ariba’s management would have eroded completely” had it been disclosed that the new CEO had only agreed to accept the position after receiving the payments.

The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead that the defendants acted with a fraudulent intent (i.e., scienter). The complaint relied heavily on statements from a confidential witness identified as an “executive assistant,” the existence of GAAP violations, and the individual defendants’ positions at the company. The court held that these allegations did not “constitute the strong circumstantial evidence of deliberately reckless or conscious misconduct with respect to each omission required for Plaintiff to overcome Moving Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”

Holding: Dismissed with prejudice.

Leave a comment

Filed under Curiouser and Curiouser, Motion To Dismiss Monitor

Then Again, We Might Fire Them

Note to companies headquartered in Kansas: be careful when telling investors that you are eager to retain your senior officers.

In a securities class action against Sprint Corp., the plaintiffs based their claims on Sprint’s March 26, 2001 statement that it had entered into new employment contracts with its CEO and COO that were “designed to insure their long-term employment with Sprint.” According to the plaintiffs, this statement was misleading because Sprint knew that it might have to fire these officers as the result of a tax avoidance issue. In its motion to dismiss, Sprint argued that it had no duty to disclose this information because its statement did not “foreclose the possibility” that the CEO and COO might later be terminated.

The court disagreed with this characterization of the statement. See State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment v. Sprint Corp., 2004 WL 1960130 (D. Kan. Sept. 3, 2004). In finding that a duty to disclose existed, the court held that “Sprint’s statements that the contracts were ‘designed to insure’ the long-term employment of [the CEO and COO] could reasonably have led an investor to conclude that the termination of [their] employment (at least in the near future) was simply not an option from Sprint’s perspective.”

Although the court may have correctly found that a duty to disclose existed, the rationale it used is curious. Did Sprint really need to say, “then again, we might fire them,” for a reasonable investor to realize that it is always possible for the employment of a CEO or COO of a corporation to be terminated? Guess so.

Leave a comment

Filed under Curiouser and Curiouser, Motion To Dismiss Monitor

Harvard Law School Settles Estate Claim

Last year, The 10b-5 Daily posted about the unusual legal battle over the estate of Harvey Greenfield. Greenfield was a well-known plaintiffs’ securities class action lawyer who passed away in 2002. Although Greenfield had told people that he planned to leave the bulk of his estate (valued at $35 million) to Harvard Law School, a will could not be located after his death. Harvard filed a claim against the estate. The New York Law Journal reports today that a settlement has been reached between Harvard and Greenfield’s sole living heir to fund a securities law professorship in Greenfield’s name with about $2.8 million.

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog, Curiouser and Curiouser

That’ll Cost You 1 Million Euros

Securities class actions brought against foreign companies, or their advisors, in U.S. court can be an adventure.

KPMG-Belgium was the auditor for Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products NV, the Belgian software maker that collapsed amid revelations of accounting fraud. A securities class action was brought against KPMG-Belgium and others in the D. of Mass. After the denial of KPMG-Belgium’s motion to dismiss, pretrial discovery commenced in September 2002 with plaintiffs serving document requests for auditor work papers.

KPMG-Belgium refused to comply with the requests, asserting that producing the papers would violate Belgian law (plaintiffs were, however, able to examine the documents as part of the Belgian criminal investigation). Plaintiffs moved to compel the production of the documents and, on November 13, 2003, a magistrate judge granted the motion. Shortly thereafter, KPMG-Belgium filed an ex parte petition with a court in Brussels seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from “taking any step” to proceed with the requested discovery. To obtain compliance, they asked the Belgian court to impose a 1 million euros fine for each violation of the proposed injunction.

The U.S. district court issued an antisuit injunction enjoining KPMG-Belgium from pursuing the Belgian court action. KPMG-Belgium appealed. Last week, the First Circuit affirmed the district court injunction order, holding that “[w]here, as here, a party institutes a foreign action in a blatant attempt to evade the rightful authority of the forum court, the need for an antisuit injunction crests.”

The Wall Street Journal has an article (subscrip. req’d) on the decision.

Quote of note (WSJ article): “That means KPMG-Belgium could soon be faced with a stark choice: It can hand over the documents. Or the firm can disregard [the district judge’s] orders. In that event, she has warned that she may enter a default judgment for the plaintiffs, exposing KPMG-Belgium to potentially billions of dollars of liability. A KPMG-Belgium spokesman, Jos Hermans, on Friday said, ‘There hasn’t been a final decision on what we’re going to do,’ although one could come this week.'”

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate Monitor, Curiouser and Curiouser