Gemstar-TV Guide Settles

Gemstar-TV Guide Int., Inc. (Nasdaq: GMST), a media technology company based in Los Angeles, has announced the preliminary settlement of the securities class action pending against the company in the C.D. of Cal. The suit is based on alleged misrepresentations made in connection with Gemstar’s accounting for certain transactions that were subsequently restated between November 2002 and March 2003. The settlement does not include the individual defendants in the class action or the related derivative cases that have been brought against the company.

The settlement, which is subject to court approval, is for $67.5 million, which will be paid in cash and stock. Gemstar will pay an aggregate of $42.5 million in cash to the class in a combination of direct payments and, interestingly, payments which may be made through the SEC. In addition, the company will issue 4,105,090 shares of common stock which was valued at $6.09 per share on the date the agreement was reached, or $25 million in the aggregate (this stock issuance is subject to possible adjustments related to share price). Gemstar will also assign to the plaintiffs certain of its claims against its former auditors, KPMG.

Leave a comment

Filed under Settlement

Lucent Sues Fiduciary Insurance Carriers

Reuters reports that Lucent Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: LU) is suing its fiduciary insurance carriers in the wake of its recent $600 million settlement of the securities litigation against the company, including a consolidated securities class action in the D. of N.J., and related ERISA, bondholder, derivative, and other state securities cases. (The settlement included $517 million for the securities class action, making it the second largest settlement of a securities class action in U.S. history.)

According to Lucent’s most recent Form 10-Q, it is continuing “to pursue partial recovery of the settlement amount from our fiduciary insurance carriers under certain insurance policies that provide coverage up to $70 million. We have filed a lawsuit against them to recover these amounts. The charge for the settlement will be revised in future quarters if we are able to recover a portion of the settlement from our fiduciary insurance carriers . . . .” The Reuters article states that Lucent has declined to name the insurance carriers that have been sued or where the suit was filed.

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog

NERA Releases Study On “Recent Trends In Securities Class Action Litigation”

NERA Economic Consulting has released a study entitled “Recent Trends In Securities Class Action Litigation: 2003 Early Update.” The study reaches the following notable conclusions:

(1) Although three of the six largest securities class action settlements of all time were in 2003 (Lucent, DiamlerChrysler, and Oxford Health Plans), the average settlement amount fell 15% to $19.8 million as compared to last year. Two-thirds of all settlements in 2003 were for less than $10 million.

(2) There were 210 securities class action filings in 2003. This is consistent, excluding laddering and analyst cases, with the post-PSLRA average of 212 filings a year.

(3) Over a five-year period, the average public corporation faces a 9% probability that it will face at least one securities class action suit.

(4) Following the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002, there have been one-third fewer dismissals of securities class actions. According to NERA, the “lower rate of dismissal suggests that either cases are proceeding more slowly or that judges are being more generous at the margins in evaluating the merits of cases.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Lies, Damn Lies, And Statistics

FDA and SEC Agree to Further Cooperation on Biotech Disclosure Issues

Securities class actions are frequently brought against biotechnology companies, often based on alleged misrepresentations related to the new-drug approval process. As previously reported in The 10b-5 Daily, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) have been in talks on how to coordinate on these disclosure issues.

Last week, the two agencies announced a series of new initiatives, including:

(1) A centralized procedure adopted by the FDA for referring to the SEC staff possible instances of securities laws violations by public companies regulated by the FDA.

(2) Identification of contacts in each of the FDA’s main organizational components (known as Centers) to serve as points of contact for the SEC and its staff to use in requesting information from FDA. These individuals would be responsible for assuring that such requests are handled promptly and thoroughly.

(3) The continued sharing of non-public information by the FDA with the SEC, consistent with FDA’s current practice, and a commitment to endeavor to take steps to further expedite this process.

According to an article in the Boston Globe on the announcement, “some in Congress questioned whether the FDA and SEC were cooperating quickly enough. But in an interview yesterday, Representative James C. Greenwood, a Pennsylvania Republican whose committee oversees the FDA, said he was ‘very impressed and encouraged’ by the new steps.” The FDA apparently does not plan to change its procedures on what information will be made public as part of the new-drug approval process.

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog

Research Analyst Claims Not Time-Barred

Similar to the Merrill Lynch cases, a securities class action was filed against First Union in May 2001 accusing the financial services company of inflating the price of Ask Jeeves stock by issuing “strong buy” recommendations while acting under an undisclosed conflict of interest. In LaGrasta v. First Union Securities, 2004 WL 178937 (11th Cir. Jan. 30, 2004), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case based based on the statute of limitations. The lower court had found that the sharp decline in the price of Ask Jeeves stock in April 2000, even though First Union was continuing to make “strong buy” recommendations, was sufficient to put the plaintiffs on inquiry notice of fraud, thus making the filing of their complaint more than a year later untimely.

On appeal, the 11th Circuit held that a stock price decline is insufficient to create inquiry notice of fraud. The court laid out five reasons: (1) stock price fluctuations are always possible; (2) Ask Jeeves stock was highly volatile; (3) the stock price decline may have resulted from reasons other than fraud; (4) the investors may have been looking for a speculative investment and therefore expected large fluctuations; and (5) the investors are suing First Union, not Ask Jeeves, so a stock price drop would not necessarily have alerted them to First Union’s misconduct. The court also rejected First Union’s argument that its disclosure of the possibility of a conflict in its analyst reports was sufficient to put investors on notice of the possibility of fraud. Based on the record, the court found that the most it could conclude as a matter of law was that the plaintiffs were on inquiry notice as of June 2000 (less than a year before the complaint was filed) when a Smart Money article expressly disclosed that First Union was in the running to be selected as the underwriter for Ask Jeeves’ secondary stock offering.

Holding: Dismissal on statute of limitations ground reversed. Case remanded for district court to consider loss causation argument.

Quote of note: “[T]he district court’s orders [in the Merrill Lynch cases finding the claims in those cases time-barred] were based only partially on the dramatic decline in the price of the shares. In fact, most of the discussion on inquiry notice by the district court concerns the newspaper articles about the conflict of interest and similar information in the public domain. We view the Merrill Lynch orders as consistent with our own conclusion that, on the face of the complaint, the publication of the Smart Money article exposing the conflict of interest of First Union and Ms. Trabuco was the event which put the La Grastas on inquiry notice.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate Monitor

Settlements In 2003

Securities Litigation Watch has an article from the February 2004 SCAS Alert that takes a look at “the good, the bad and the ugly” settlements from last year. Bruce Carton notes that large settlements, in terms of overall dollars, do not necessarily translate into large recoveries for the investors.

Leave a comment

Filed under Settlement

Titan Pharmaceuticals Dismissed

Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Amex: TTP) has announced that the plaintiffs in the derivative and securities class action litigation brought against the Company have voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. The securities class actions, intitially filed in the N.D. of Cal. last November, had alleged that Titan made false statements regarding the development of a new drug for treating schizophrenia.

Leave a comment

Filed under Motion To Dismiss Monitor

Applying The Discovery Stay To Related Derivative Cases

The PSLRA provides that “all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless the court finds upon the motion of any party that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party.” Based on the legislative history, Congress was concerned about the high costs associated with discovery and the possibility that defendants would be forced into early settlements to avoid these costs.

An open question, however, is whether the discovery stay should be applied to related federal cases that do not allege securities law claims. In In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Sec. and “ERISA” Litig., 2003 WL 22227945 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2003), the court stayed all non-ERISA specific discovery. The court found: “If plaintiffs in a securities case could, by tacking ERISA claims onto underlying Securities actions, obtain discovery to which they would otherwise not be entitled under the PSLRA, then the PSLRA’s mandatory stay provision would, as a practical matter, never apply. Congress could not possibly have intended for the PSLRA to be so easily marginalized.” (The 10b-5 Daily has previously posted about the case.)

The court in In re FirstEnergy Shareholder Derivative Lit., 2004 WL 161330 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2004) has recently disagreed with this approach (the opinion cites the AOL decision, but does not discuss it). Derivative and securities class action cases have been brought against FirstEnergy based on the same course of conduct. The defendants argued that discovery in the derivative case should be stayed pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in the securities class action, noting that the discovery could be used to assist the securities class action plaintiffs. The court found that the PSLRA is silent on the issue of staying discovery in derivative cases and it refused to “read in this silence Congress’s intent to prevent discovery in non-securities fraud cases simply because the cases share facts in common with securities fraud cases.” The court also declined to grant a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c).

Holding: Motion for stay of discovery denied.

Quote of note: The FirstEnergy court also found that permitting discovery to go forward would not frustrate the PSLRA’s goals because “an exchange [between the derivative and securities class action plaintiffs] of information, otherwise discoverable in this derivative action, facilitates the purpose of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 1.” This appears difficult to reconcile with the PSLRA’s legislative history and the holding in AOL.

Leave a comment

Filed under Discovery Stay

Forbes Profiles Milberg

Forbes has a cover story on Milberg Weiss, widely recognized as the leading plaintiffs’ securities class action firm, in its February 16, 2004 edition.

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog

South Korean Companies Troubled By Prospect Of Securities Class Actions

As reported in The 10b-5 Daily, last December the South Korean legislature passed a bill establishing a private securities class action system. The bill was subject to a contentious debate and, with the new system scheduled to go into effect in 2005, the debate is not over yet. An article in the Korea Times states that companies are demanding a statutory exception for accounting frauds that occured prior to 2005.

Quote of note: “In a seminar on the prospects of class action lawsuits, hosted by the Federation of Korean Industries (FKI), Moon Tack-kon, vice chairman of the Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants, said considering the accounting features, it is difficult to clean up past accounting books a year before the 2005 introduction of the class action lawsuit. ‘Past accounting frauds tend to be reflected in the next period’s financial report,’ Moon said.”

Leave a comment

Filed under All The News That's Fit To Blog