Court Upholds Our Claims In Fiat Chyrsler Case

ATTORNEY: MICHAEL J. WERNKE
POMERANTZ MONITOR NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
 

The district court for the Southern District of New York has substantially denied defendants’ motion to dismiss our complaint in Koopman v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al. The complaint alleges Section 10(b) and 20(a) violations against the Fiat-Chrysler (“FCA”), CEO Sergio Marchionne, and the executive in charge of vehicle safety regulatory compliance.

The complaint alleges that defendants misled investors when they asserted that FCA was “substantially in compliance” with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (“NHTSA”) regulations. In truth, FCA had a widespread pattern of systemic regulatory violations dating back to 2013, in which FCA would delay required owner notification of defects and vehicle repair. Prior to defendants’ statements regarding compliance, NHTSA had at least twice written directly to Marchionne and the executive in charge of regulatory compliance, expressing concern about FCA’s regulatory violations/non-compliance. The truth was revealed on July 26, 2015, when NHTSA announced a Consent Order against FCA, fining the company a record-high $105 million and requiring a substantial number of recalls and repairs. Then on October 28, 2015, the company announced a $900 million pre-tax charge for an increase in estimated future recalls. The stock declined about 5% following each disclosure.

The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. It found that the complaint adequately alleged that defendants’ statements that FCA was “substantially in compliance” with the “relevant global regulatory requirements” were false when made. The court rejected defendants’ argument that violations in one country as to one regulator did not render such a broad statement misleading, agreeing with our argument that given the context of the statement the reasonable investor would conclude that FCA was in substantial compliance as to each area of regulation, including vehicle safety. The court also found that defendants’ statements regarding the “robustness” of FCA’s compliance systems and that they were “industry best” and similar statements were not puffery. However, the court found that the complaint failed to allege that the company’s statements of loss reserves for recalls, which were opinions, were false.

The court also found that the complaint adequately alleged scienter because defendants had received a letter from NHTSA expressing concern about certain compliance issues. The court also found that defendants repeated public discussions of compliance, access to reports identifying violations and the abrupt resignation of the compliance executive supported an inference of scienter.

Delaware Supreme Court Determines That Investor "Holder" Claims Belong To Them, Not The Company

ATTORNEY: H. ADAM PRUSSIN
POMERANTZ MONITOR NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016

In 1998, Arthur and Angela Williams became investors in Citigroup. They planned to sell all their shares in 2007; but because the company’s financial disclosures looked good at that time, they sold only 1 million shares, at a price of $55 per share, holding onto their other 16.6 million shares. 22 months later, after the financial meltdown of 2008, they sold the rest of their shares, for $3.09 per share, $800 million less than they would have received had they sold those shares when they originally planned. They then sued Citigroup and several of its officers and directors in federal court for failing to disclose Citigroup’s true financial condition, and thereby inducing them not to sell their shares.

One of the many issues in the case was whether their claim belonged to them or, rather, was a “derivative” claim that belonged to Citigroup. Because Citigroup is a Delaware corporation, the federal courts turned, for the answer to this question, to the Delaware Supreme Court. Its answer, in a recent en banc decision called AHW investment Partnership, was that the Williams’ claim was a direct claim that they could assert themselves.

In hindsight, this decision looks like a no-brainer. How could Citigroup be the owner of a claim seeking recovery from Citigroup, for false public statements Citigroup itself issued, which allegedly injured investors directly?

But here is the problem: Citigroup also suffered from whatever wrongdoing its officers and directors committed that led to the meltdown of its share price, including the financial misrepresentations made to its investors. So, could the same wrongs produce separate injuries and separate claims belonging to entirely different people? There was case law that suggested that the answer was no: a claim either belonged to the company or its shareholders, but not both. AHW says that, at least where the claims do not involve breaches of fiduciary duty, separate claims based on the same wrongdoing can belong to both.

A Distinction With a Difference. One of the many esoteric distinctions made by Delaware corporate law is between “direct” and “derivative” investor claims. Direct claims are those that belong to the investors personally, involving injuries that they have suffered directly. Derivative claims are those that belong to the company in which they have invested, and affect its investors only as an indirect result of injury to the company. Of course, anything that injures the company also injures its shareholders – but only indirectly. For example, if officers mismanage the company, that injures the company directly. Investors suffer the consequences, but, usually, only indirectly.

From a litigation standpoint this distinction has major consequences. In a direct suit any damages recovered go to the investors; but in a derivative suit, damages go to the company, not the investors. Moreover, from a tactical standpoint, while investors may pursue their own “direct” claims without restriction, they can prosecute derivative claims only if they can surmount the “demand” hurdle. Normally, investors are allowed to pursue derivative claims only if they can show that the directors are so conflicted that they cannot independently decide whether to pursue those claims. In such cases, demanding that the board bring a lawsuit would be “futile.” This “demand” requirement is often an insurmountable obstacle.

Many investor suits involve claims that the company’s directors have breached their fiduciary duties. Some of those duties run to the company itself, such as the duties of loyalty and care; others run to the shareholders directly, such as the duty of “candor” in communications made to investors. Sometimes these same duties can run in both directions. So Delaware law devised a legal test to distinguish whether fiduciary duty claims in a particular case are direct or derivative. In a 2004 decision named Tooley the Delaware Supreme Court held that this test involves two questions:

((1) who suffered the alleged harm (the corporation or the suing stock-holders, individually): and (2) who would receive the benefit of any recovery or other remedy (the corporation or the suing stock-holders, individually)?

The question, then, is either or: either the corporation owns the claim, or the investors do, but not both.

In Tooley, the investors claimed that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by improperly agreeing to postpone the closing of a merger, which delayed the payout of the merger consideration to the shareholders. The Court held that this was not a derivative claim because “there is no derivative claim asserting injury to the corporate entity. There is no relief that would go to the corporation.”

Since Tooley, many Delaware cases have held, or implied, that if the alleged injury is caused by a drop in the company’s stock price, the investors’ losses flowed from an injury to the corporation, and that under Tooley the claims must be derivative.

In AHW, for example, Citigroup argued that plaintiffs’ losses flowed from injuries suffered by the corporation, which caused the price of its stock to collapse. Nonetheless, AHW held that these individual investors had their own direct claim, based on representations made to investors. The court held that the Tooley “either/or” analysis for claims involving fiduciary duties did not apply to other types of claims.

AHW involved claims of common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. These are typically considered to be direct claims that investors can pursue on their own behalf. If the Williamses had purchased or sold their shares based on these misrepresentations, there would have been no confusion; but because they were asserting so-called “holder” claims, alleging that they were  misled into holding onto their shares, their losses were traceable to injuries suffered by the company. AHW held that the Tooley analysis did not apply to claims that do not involve alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Court rejected the assertion that Tooley

was ―intended to be a general statement requiring all claims, whether based on a tort, contract, or statutory cause of action . . . to be brought derivatively whenever the corporation of which the plaintiff is a stockholder suffered the alleged harm. . . . when a plaintiff asserts a claim based on the plaintiff‘s own right, such as a claim for breach of a commercial contract, Tooley does not apply.

In other words, the Court is saying that if an investor asserts a non-fiduciary duty claim that is clearly personal to him, it makes no difference whether the investor’s losses flowed from an injury to the company.

The Second Circuit Holds That Fraud That Perpetuates An Inflated Stock Price Is Actionable

ATTORNEYS: EMMA GILMORE AND MARC GORRIE
POMERANTZ MONITOR NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016

In a recent decision in the long-running Vivendi case, the Second Circuit has issued a landmark ruling adopting the so-called “price maintenance” theory of securities fraud. This theory holds that investors can recover for fraudulent statements that did not push up the price of a company’s securities, but maintained that price at an artificially inflated level.

The Vivendi case is 14 years old and counting, one of the longest running securities fraud cases ever. It is also one of the few securities fraud class actions that ever went to trial. That trial lasted three months and, in January of 2010, a jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs, finding that Vivendi had recklessly issued 57 public statements that misstated or obscured its true – and dire –financial condition.

But the jury’s verdict almost seven years ago was far from the end of the story. The Supreme Court subsequently issued its decision in Morrison, holding that the federal securities laws do not apply to foreign securities transactions. As a result, class members who purchased Vivendi stock on foreign exchanges were excluded from the case. Since Vivendi is a French company, that ruling wiped out the claims of many class members, and potentially billions of dollars in judgments went down the drain.

Before awarding damages to other individual class members, the district court allowed defendants to try to prove that some of them, specifically certain sophisticated institutional investors, did not rely on defendants’ misstatements in buying their shares and therefore could not recover damages either. That dispute is what led to the Second Circuit’s decision adopting the “price maintenance” theory.

Background. In 1998, Compagnie Générale des Eaux, the French utilities conglomerate, changed its name to Vivendi and transformed itself seemingly overnight into a global media conglomerate by aggressively acquiring diverse media and communications businesses in the United States and abroad. Vivendi financed these leveraged mergers and acquisitions by issuing stock, but by 2002 the company was “running critically low” of cash and in serious danger of being unable to meet its financial obligations.

Vivendi did not disclose this, but instead made numerous representations to the market suggesting that its business prospects were robust.

Eventually a series of credit downgrades revealing Vivendi’s cash problems sent the company’s shares tumbling, and securities litigation ensued.

By mid-2002, consolidated class actions were filed in the Southern District of New York against Vivendi and its former CEO, Jean Marie Messier, and CFO, Guillaume Hannezo. Plaintiffs alleged that Vivendi violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 in issuing “persistently optimistic representations” denying the company’s near-bankrupt state, and that the CEO and CFO were liable as controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the

Exchange Act. As noted above, in 2010 the jury found for the plaintiff class against Vivendi, but exonerated the two individual defendants.

After trial, the district court ruled that Vivendi should be given the opportunity to show that sophisticated financial institutions had not relied on their misrepresentations in purchasing their shares. Vivendi claimed that plaintiffs failed to prove reliance because its misrepresentations merely maintained its stock price, rather than pushing it up. In its view, unless the price of the company’s stock actually rose as a result of a misrepresentation, there was no price impact and, therefore, no reliance. In this view, maintaining a pre-existing inflated stock price does not constitute a price impact.

The reliance requirement asks whether there is a “proper” connection between a defendant’s misrepresentation and a plaintiff’s injury. To resolve the difficulties of proving direct reliance in the context of modern securities markets, where impersonal trading rather than face-to-face transactions are the norm, the Supreme Court has held that a prospective class of plaintiffs could invoke a rebuttable presumption of reliance by invoking the “fraud on the market theory,” which provides that “[a]n investor who buys or sells stock at the price set by the market does so in reliance on the integrity of that price,” where material information about the company (including  any fraudulent public statements) are reflected in the market price. Investors are all presumed to rely on the “integrity” of that market price when they purchase shares. Thus, part of what they are relying on, indirectly, are the fraudulent statements.

In Halliburton, however, the Supreme Court held that the fraud on the market theory creates only a presumption of reliance, and defendants are entitled to try to rebut that presumption in particular cases. In Vivendi the company argued that it had rebutted that presumption by showing that its stock price did not increase after most of the alleged misstatements, and therefore those misstatements had no effect on the investors’ decisions to invest.

The district court rejected that argument, accepting the so-called price maintenance theory. This theory, which is being debated in federal courts all over the country, holds that plaintiffs do not have to show that the fraudulent statements pushed the stock price up. Rather, the theory posits that fraud that artificially maintains the inflated market price of a stock does have a price impact and therefore supports investors’ claims that they relied on the integrity of the market price when they purchased their shares.

Vivendi appealed.

Second Circuit Decision. Delivering a major victory for investors, the Second Circuit, in its Vivendi decision, embraced the price maintenance theory for the first time. It joined the Eleventh and Seventh Circuits in rejecting the idea that a fraudulent statement, to be actionable, must always introduce “new” inflation into the price of a security. The Second Circuit analyzed Vivendi’s contention as resting on two premises: that the artificial inflation in the company’s share price caused by the market’s misapprehension of the company’s liquidity risk would not have dissipated had Vivendi remained silent and that Vivendi had the option to remain silent, thus permitting the preexisting inflation to persist. In other words, Vivendi argued that their fraudulent statements had no impact because its stock price would have remained inflated anyway had it just said nothing.

The Second Circuit rejected that argument. First, it held that it was not necessarily true that the stock price would have remained unchanged if Vivendi had said nothing:

Perhaps, in the face of silence, inflation could have remained unchanged. But it also could have plummeted rapidly, or gradually, as the truth came out on its own, no longer hidden by a misstatement’s perpetuation of the misconception. . . . It is far more coherent to conclude that such a misstatement does not simply maintain the inflation, but indeed “prevents [the] preexisting inflation in a stock price from dissipating.”

Second, it held that because it chose to issue statements about its financial condition, Vivendi had no option to remain silent about its liquidity problems:

Vivendi misunderstands the nature of the obligations a company takes upon itself at the moment it chooses, even without obligation, to speak. It is well established precedent in this Circuit that “once a company speaks on an issue or topic, there is a duty to tell the whole truth,” “[e]ven when there is no existing independent duty to disclose information” on the issue or topic.

Thus, far from being a “fabricated” and “erroneous” argument, as Vivendi labeled it, the Second Circuit said that the price maintenance theory prevents companies from “eschew[ing] securities-fraud liability whenever they actively perpetuate (i.e., through affirmative misstatements) inflation that is already extant in their stock price, as long as they cannot be found liable for whatever originally introduced the inflation. Indeed, under Vivendi’s approach, companies (like Vivendi) would have every incentive to maintain inflation that already exists in their stock price by making false or misleading statements.  After all, the alternatives would only operate to the company’s detriment: remaining silent, as already noted, could allow the inflation to dissipate, and making true statements on the issue would ensure that inflation dissipates immediately.” After discussing the theory with approval and at length, the Second Circuit concluded:

In rejecting Vivendi’s position that an alleged misstatement must be associated with an increase in inflation to have a “price impact,” we join in the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits’ conclusion that “theories of ‘inflation maintenance’ and ‘inflation introduction’ are not separate legal categories . . . Put differently, we agree with the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits that securities fraud defendants cannot avoid liability for an alleged misstatement merely because the misstatement is not associated with an uptick in inflation.

Wells Fargo Joins The Long List Of Misbehaving Banks

ATTORNEY: H. ADAM PRUSSIN
POMERANTZ MONITOR SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2016

Although this was a tiny fraud, by bank standards, it hit home harder than most. Unlike the typical bank horror story, this one did not involve machinations in the sales of complex securities by one financial behemoth to another. Instead, it targeted regular retail customers of the bank, who were victimized by nickel and dime chiseling by over 5,000 low-level Wells Fargo employees. Because victims were mostly everyday people, this story cut through the election year noise and reminded us how bad these people are.

Despite the massive wealth of many banks, retail bank employees are among the lowest paid workers on earth, many earning around $10 an hour. In this case, Wells Fargo reportedly made their lives even more miserable by imposing extremely aggressive sales targets on them if they wanted to keep their jobs or, possibly earn a little Christmas bonus. These sales were supposed to  be generated by “cross-selling” additional accounts or services to existing Wells Fargo retail customers. While there is nothing wrong with a bank providing incentives to employees to boost sales, in this case these were really quotas, which were so high that employees usually could not meet them legitimately. So, according to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, some 5,300 or so Wells Fargo employees opened about 1.5 million unauthorized deposit accounts in the  name of unsuspecting customers and made about 565,000 unauthorized credit card applications, generating about $2.6 million in fees and enabling themselves to keep their jobs.

Years ago, Wells Fargo got wind of this illicit activity, and it apparently made their employees attend “ethics training” courses where they were repeatedly told to stop their fraudulent behavior. The bank supposedly hired more and more “risk managers” to try to prevent it as well. But the crazy sales quotas remained in place. Not surprisingly, then, the misbehavior continued for over five years. Reportedly, many Wells Fargo employees felt that they had no choice but to do whatever it took to meet the bank’s impossible sales quotas, or else face termination.

As is typical in cases involving bad bank behavior, once the wrongdoing was publicly exposed, only the little people were held responsible. So far, no one has identified a single member of management who got the axe for failing to prevent or stop this conduct.

Some have suggested that the bank should “claw back” bonuses that were awarded based on phony sales reports. Perhaps they should start by looking at Carrie Tolstedt, the divisional senior vice president for community banking, who was in charge of Wells Fargo’s 6,000 branches where the infractions took place. In the last three years, she was paid a total of $27 million. Although she stepped down in July, she remains employed by the bank until the end of the year. When she leaves, she will probably be able to take with her nearly $125 million in stock and options.

In the end, the bank agreed in September to pay a fine of $185 million. When this agreement was announced, the bank’s stock dropped about 7.5%, cutting its market capitalization by $19 billion.

On September 20, 2016, Charles Stumpf, CEO of Wells Fargo, testified before the Senate Banking Committee, and repeated his claim that this fraud was the work of a handful of “bad apples.” That argument did not sit well. Senator Elizabeth Warren blasted him, saying that “you should give back the money that you took while this scam was going on and you should be criminally investigated by both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. This just isn’t right. A cashier who steals a handful of $20s is held accountable. But Wall Street executives almost never hold themselves accountable.”

Distinguished Federal District Judge Shira Scheindlin Retires

ATTORNEY: ADAM G. KURTZ
POMERANTZ MONITOR SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2016

Federal District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York stepped down from the bench in April of 2016. Over the past two decades “Judge Scheindlin was one of the hardest working and scholarly judges that I had the honor of appearing before in court, as well as working with in law symposiums,” according to Pomerantz partner, Marc Gross. When appearing before Judge Scheindlin, Mr. Gross noted that “[s]he was always incredibly prepared, even on the most esoteric economic issues, asking pointed questions that kept witnesses and counsel on their toes.” Over the years, Mr. Gross and Judge Scheindlin have also appeared together at law symposiums, including the Annual Institute For Investor Protection Conference, to speak about securities fraud class actions.

Judge Scheindlin has had a 22-year history of presiding over important securities, antitrust and civil rights class action, cases, and writing landmark case law decisions. Several of them were cases in which Pomerantz represented investors and consumers. Most recently, Pomerantz had great success in an important securities fraud (Barclays) and antirust (NHL & MLB) cases that were before Judge Scheindlin.

In April 2015, in the “Dark Pool” Barclays’ securities fraud case, Judge Scheindlin denied defendant Barclays’ motion to dismiss, and in February 2016, granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and appointed Pomerantz as lead class counsel. This case concerns Barclays’ false statements regarding the integrity of its “dark pool,” an alternative trading platform that does not reveal the size and price of the anonymous trade. Judge Scheindlin’s case law decision was important because of its emphasis on the critical importance (“materiality”) to investors of management integrity. The decision not only granted class investors and Pomerantz a legal victory, it advanced the important legal standard that false and misleading statements about management integrity could be the foundation of a securities fraud case, even if the amount of money involved is not particularly great. Judge Scheindlin’s class certification decision is now on appeal before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

As one of her final orders, just before she stepped down from the bench, Judge Scheindlin granted final settlement approval “of a lawsuit brought by fans [against Major League Baseball and cable TV providers] over how games are broadcast, a crack in the dam the league and pay TV have built against unrestrained viewing,” according to an article entitled “MLB Settlement Gives Baseball Fans Viewing Options,” on Bloomberg.com. Pomerantz was co-lead class counsel. More specifically, the antitrust cases challenged MLB and NHL’s “black out” prohibitions of teams from broadcasting or streaming games outside their home and inside outer market territories. Judge Scheindlin concluded that the settlement – worth $200 million to consumers – will lower the price to watch baseball online and increase online viewing options so that (1) fans can watch a favorite team, without blackouts, by subscribing to cable TV and MLB.com; (ii) out of town fans can buy discounted single team online streaming packages; and (iii) hometown fans can stream to all devices. In the parallel NHL case, the NHL settled and agreed to provide NHL fans with previously unavailable single-team packages at prices well below the out-of-market bundled package.

However, Marc Gross says, “Judge Scheindlin’s greatest contribution was in the arena of social justice and civil rights. She was the first judge in the country to find that certain police tactics (in this case “stop and frisk”)  were applied in a discriminatory manner, and therefore, were unconstitutional. This was before the “choke hold” and police shooting deaths, and before Ferguson and Black Lives Matter. Her decision allowed New York City and its police to rapidly move forward to address questionable policing tactics, thereby undoubtedly helping to avoid much of the turmoil experienced by other cities.”

In the wake of her decision, the number of “stop and frisks” dropped from 685,000 in 2011 to 24,000 in 2015. In May 2016, Judge Scheindlin told Benjamin Weiser of The New York Times, “Think of the lives that that has changed, the lives that that has touched,the lives of people who  were stopped for no good reason and how intrusive that is.” The policy had “bred nothing but distrust,” she added. During this same period, major crime in NYC overall dropped 5.8% in the two years since Judge Scheindlin’s decision. “As we end [2015], the City of New York will record the safest year in its history, its modern history, as it relates to crime,” NYPD Commissioner Bratton said.

Judge Scheindlin has said, “I do what I think is right, and whether the circuit [appeals court], the press, the public or whoever think it’s right doesn’t matter. Should it? . . . What I hope to do are even more good works than I could accomplish here [as a Judge].”

Supreme Court To Revisit “Personal Benefit” Requirement For Insider Trading Convictions

ATTORNEY: OMAR JAFRI
POMERANTZ MONITOR SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2016

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case next term involving the standards for insider trading convictions. At issue is whether the government must prove that a corporate insider (the tipper) received a personal benefit of a “pecuniary or similarly valuable nature” in exchange for disclosing confidential information to a remote tippee. In the case in which certification was granted, U.S. v. Salman, the Ninth Circuit held that the “personal benefit” requirement was satisfied when the tipper, Maher Kara, a former investment banker at Citigroup, leaked  confidential information about mergers and acquisitions in the healthcare industry to his older brother, Michael, who, in turn, passed it on to Maher’s brother-in-law, Salman.

Maher and Michael pled guilty and cooperated with the government during Salman’s trial. Maher testified that he willingly disclosed confidential information to “benefit” Michael and “fulfill whatever needs he had.” Michael testified that he told Salman that Maher was the source of the information, and that Salman agreed to “protect” Maher from exposure. The Ninth Circuit concluded that, in light of the parties’ close-knit relationships, Salman must have known that Maher intended to benefit his elder brother when he leaked the confidential information. Based on these facts, the Ninth Circuit upheld Salman’s conviction on the ground that Maher gave “a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend,” and there was sufficient evidence to conclude that Salman knew that Maher personally benefited from the disclosure.

In affirming Salman’s conviction, the Ninth Circuit relied on Dirks v. SEC, where the Supreme Court held that an insider trading conviction requires that the tipper must receive a personal benefit in exchange for leaking confidential information to a tippee. In Dirks, the Supreme Court defined a personal benefit to the tipper as a “pecuniary gain,” “a reputational benefit” or “a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend.”

In concluding that Salman’s conduct constituted “a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend,” the Ninth Circuit rejected Salman’s request to adopt the Second Circuit’s novel and restrictive approach towards insider trading cases. In U.S. v. Newman, the Second Circuit held two years ago that a close personal or familial relationship between the tipper and the tippee, without more, is not sufficient to show that the tipper obtained a personal benefit unless the government proves that the tipper received “ . . . at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.” In October 2015, the Supreme Court denied the government’s request to review the Second Circuit’s decision in Newman.

In our view, the Second Circuit’s approach contradicts the Supreme Court’s holding in Dirks that a “gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend” constitutes a personal benefit. The legal and ordinary definitions of the term “gift” do not contemplate an exchange, consideration or any kind of “pecuniary” or “similarly valuable” benefit in return. For over thirty years, convictions based on insider trading have been sustained even if the tipper did not receive a tangible benefit in exchange for breaches of fiduciary duties and the consequential disclosure of material, nonpublic information. Until Newman was decided in 2014, every Circuit held that the law does not require a tipper to obtain a pecuniary benefit, and every Circuit to rule on the issue since Newman has held the same. While the Second Circuit paid lip service to Dirks’ holding by acknowledging that its prior precedent broadly defined a personal benefit to include a “gift of confidential information,” the new rule it crafted in Newman has upended well-settled law and wreaked havoc on the justice system. Several high-profile convictions and guilty pleas entered in courts in the Second Circuit have been set aside based on Newman.

To the extent that the three-judge panel in Newman chose to adopt a more restrictive approach to provide clarity and certainty in the law, the effort seems to have failed. In a recent trial in New York City, a former investment banker was convicted of insider trading based on leaking confidential information about healthcare mergers to his father. The government argued that the defendant obtained a pecuniary benefit because his father paid certain expenses in connection with the defendant’s wedding. Defendant, however, claimed that the wedding expense payments were not a “pecuniary benefit” but were, instead, a “gift.” Friends and relatives give gifts to each other all the time. Drawing such distinctions brings us right back into a gray area subject to endless uncertainty.

In urging the Supreme Court to adopt the Second Circuit’s standard and limit convictions to instances where an insider obtains a “potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature,” Salman argues that the Ninth Circuit’s approach raises separation-of-powers and Due Process concerns, and delegates to prosecutors the power to legislate by defining, on an ad hoc basis, the kinds of personal benefits that can make the difference between guilt and innocence. Over the last decade, the Supreme Court, including Justices on both sides of the ideological divide, has been increasingly receptive to these types of arguments when high-profile white collar criminal defendants or powerful politicians accused of corruption are involved. For example, two months ago, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Virginia’s ex-governor, in part, because it held that ingratiation and access in exchange for lavish gifts and money does not constitute corruption. That decision was unanimous. Whether it will influence the Court’s decision in Salman remains to be seen.

Oregon Court Holds Exorbitant Executive Compensation For Past Services Raises Doubt That Directors Exercised Valid Business Judgment

ATTORNEY: DARYA KAPULINA-FILINA
POMERANTZ MONITOR SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2016

In a recent victory before the Circuit Court of Oregon, the court upheld Pomerantz’s shareholder derivative complaint against the board of directors of Lithia Motors, Inc. The case stems from an agreement approved by the board for exorbitant compensation to be paid to Lithia’s founder and CEO, Sidney DeBoer, following his resignation. The compensation package entailed annual payments of $1,050,000 for the remainder of DeBoer’s life, a $42,000 car allowance, and continued reimbursement for premiums on DeBoer’s insurance policies. None of these payments were required by DeBoer’s existing employment agreement and, therefore, amounted to a going-away present from the company. The complaint we filed alleged that by approving this giveaway, the board breached its fiduciary duties of care and loyalty and committed waste of corporate assets, resulting in DeBoer’s unjust enrichment.

This is a derivative case, brought by shareholders on behalf of the corporation. Under Oregon law, which is analogous to Delaware law, a complaint in a derivative action must allege either that, prior to commencing the lawsuit, shareholders made a demand on the board to take corrective action to avoid litigation, or that demand was excused because it would be “futile” or an “idle gesture.” Plaintiffs are typically excused from making a demand if they can show specific facts demonstrating that there was reasonable doubt that (1) the majority of directors are disinterested or independent; or (2) the transaction was a valid exercise of business judgment (more on business judgment below). The plaintiff shareholders in Lithia did not make the pre-litigation demand on the board, but included facts in the complaint which we contended showed that demand would have been futile.

The board moved to dismiss our case, arguing that pre-suit demand was not excused and that, in any case, the complaint failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duties, corporate waste, or unjust enrichment. The court upheld each of our claims. It held that there is reasonable doubt as to the independence of three out of the seven Lithia directors named in the lawsuit, but three out of seven did not make up a majority. The court went on to analyze whether there was reasonable doubt that the challenged transaction was otherwise the product of a valid exercise of business judgment. The court found that plaintiffs met their “heavy burden” through “particularized facts” in the complaint showing that:

(1) DeBoer would receive his benefits in consideration of his prior services. The court agreed with plaintiffs that past services are not valid consideration for these payments.

(2) The board chose not to retain a compensation consultant and provided no analysis of what other departing executives typically receive.

(3) The board delegated full authority to director William Young to approve the final agreement, and Young had to practically force other members of the Compensation Committee to review the Transition Agreement.

(4) DeBoer’s Transition Agreement was not approved by the company’s audit committee.

(5) DeBoer’s compensation was disproportionately higher than designated in Lithia’s “Change of Control Agreement” which specifies compensation payable to him in the  event of a sale of all or substantially all of the assets of Lithia, any merger, consolidation or acquisition, or any change in the ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting stock.

Given these facts, the court found that “plaintiffs have plead particularized facts in their complaint which create a reasonabledoubt that the transaction was a product of validbusiness judgment . . . [and] plaintiffs raise a reason to doubt that the directors were adequately informed in making their decision.” As a result, the shareholders were excused from making a pre-litigation demand on the board.

The court went on to uphold each of plaintiffs’ substantive claims. As for our claims against DeBoer, It held that just because he did not personally vote on whether to approve his compensation, he was nonetheless potentially liable for a breach of fiduciary duties claim for “indirectly engaging in the transaction.” The court relied on the shareholders’ allegations that:

(1) DeBoer, owning 52% of the votes, admittedly can cause the company to enter into agreements with which other stockholders do not agree.

(2) DeBoer engaged in a self-dealing transaction.

(3) The board “generally failed to cleanse the taint of self-interest and should have obtained shareholder approval.”

The court upheld the waste of corporate assets claim, relying on plaintiffs’ allegations that the compensation in question was in exchange for past services and was beyond what the compensation committee deemed fair. It found that plaintiffs’ allegations “suggest an unreasonable exchange” because according to Lithia’s Change of Control Agreement, the Transaction Agreement over compensated DeBoer by 1,000%.

Finally, the court upheld plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim on the basis that DeBoer’s compensation was for past services rendered, for which DeBoer had already been compensated.

The Lithia decision is instructive to other shareholders who need to overcome the test for demand futility but are not able to establish that the majority of the board of directors were conflicted. Shareholders can overcome business judgment and establish doubt as to the board’s informed decision-making and valid exercise of judgment by detailing the insufficient manner in which directors handled the questioned transaction. Some aspects to highlight in a derivative complaint include:

• Were draft agreements presented to the board or committees (compensation committee, audit committee, special committee)?

• Were questions raised by the board or was the transaction rubber stamped for approval?

• What was the review process and duration of the evaluation of the transaction?

• Did the board retain an outside expert or consultant?

• Was a legal advisor retained to review the propriety of the transaction? The Lithia court cited a case involving executive compensation of the president of the Walt Disney Company where the compensation committee met for less than an hour, asked no questions, gave no presentations, did not engage an expert consultant, and approved the exorbitant payments.

• How does the transaction compare with others? Was any comparable transactions analysis made?

• What benefit does the transaction provide to the company and shareholders?

• Was shareholder approval obtained?

Although shareholders still face a heavy burden to overcome the business judgment rule in the context of a demand futility issue, the Lithia decision gives hope to shareholders that courts will not just assume the board took adequate measures in approving a questionable transaction such as excessive executive compensation payouts, but may scrutinize the board’s review process.

In doing so, they can even allege defendants’ federal-law violations for similar conduct.

Decision Certifying Class In Petrobras Case Heads To Second Circuit

ATTORNEY: JOHN A. KEHOE
POMERANTZ MONITOR SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2016

As the Monitor has previously reported, the court has appointed Pomerantz as lead counsel for a class of purchasers in the U.S. of securities issued by Petrobras, a Brazilian corporation engulfed in a massive corruption scandal. We were retained in this case, which is pending in the Southern District of New York, by lead plaintiff in the action, Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd., and by a U.S. state retirement plan. Plaintiffs allege that the fraud that pervaded Petrobras artificially inflated the price of Petrobras securities by billions of dollars, while in the process hobbling the political and economic structure of Brazil, one of the world’s largest economies.

In February, Judge Rakoff certified a class of purchasers of Petrobras securities on a U.S. exchange or through other domestic transactions between January 22, 2010 and July 28, 2015 for claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In addition, for claims asserted under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Judge Rakoff certified a class of purchasers of Petrobras debt securities in U.S. domestic transactions in/or traceable to public offerings that Petrobras conducted on May 15, 2013 and March 11, 2014.

The classes were limited to investors who engaged in securities transactions in the U.S. because of the Supreme Court’s decision several years ago in a case called Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank (“Morrison”), where the Court held that U.S. securities laws apply only to domestic transactions. The Petrobras class certification motion turned largely on whether the question of where each investor’s purchases occurred presents individual issues that would “predominate” over common questions in the case. In certifying the class, Judge Rakoff found that “the Morrison determination is administratively feasible” in a class action. In particular, Judge Rakoff determined that:

The criteria identified by [the Second Circuit], as relevant to the determination of whether a transaction was domestic, are highly likely to be documented in a form susceptible to the bureaucratic processes of determining who belongs in a class.  For example, documentation of ‘the placement of purchase orders’ is the sort of discrete, objective record routinely produced by the modern financial system that a court, a putative class member, or a claims administrator can use to determine  whether a claim satisfies Morrison.

In addition to challenging this finding, Petrobras also challenged Judge Rakoff’s finding that market efficiency for Petrobras securities was sufficient to satisfy the fraud-on-the-market theory. This theory makes it possible to establish the element of reliance, which is required for such claims, on a class-wide basis.

Petrobras filed an interlocutory appeal, and in June the Second Circuit agreed to hear Petrobras’ appeal, on an expedited basis.

Since that time, numerous amicus briefs from non-parties have been submitted in support of Judge Rakoff’s decision. Notably, the National Conference of Public Employee Retirement Systems (“NCPERS”) filed an amicus brief in support of class certification. NCPERS is the largest national, non-profit public pension trade association. With respect to the Securities Act claims related to the note purchases, and in particular with respect to the issue of whether determining whether a transaction occurred in the U.S., NCPERS asserts that the class as certified is sufficiently ascertainable through ordinary documentation that would be submitted during an administrative claims process, and that limiting the class to purchasers in domestic transactions does not render the class indeterminate, unfair to class members or defendants, or otherwise defective. Recognizing that the Supreme Court in Morrison and the Second Circuit in Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Ficeto set forth straight-forward criteria for analyzing the domestic transaction requirement, NCPERS contends that the types of proof needed to establish the elements of a domestic transaction typically are readily available and amenable to the ordinary claims administration processes in securities cases.

Similarly, the State Board of Administration of Florida (“SBA”) also filed an amicus brief supporting the judge’s decision on the domestic versus foreign transaction issue, although its argument was far broader. The SBA, governed by a three-member Board of  Trustees that includes the Governor, Chief Financial Officer, and the Attorney General of the State of Florida, has over $170 billion in assets under management. The SBA argues that all trades in Petrobras notes, regardless of their origins, should properly be regarded as occurring in the United States because the notes are themselves housed at the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), located in the United States, and all transactions in those notes occur through DTC’s process of “settlement,” when the notes are debited from the seller’s brokerage account and deposited into the buyer’s brokerage account. Such transactions bear all the hallmarks of title transfers and take place entirely within DTC’s self-contained electronic system in the New York area, making all trades within that system—including those in Petrobras notes—domestic. Transactions settling through DTC utilize the same method of transfer as all trades on domestic exchanges. This principle would render all trades in these securities automatically “domestic” and would eliminate this as an issue on class determination.

Amicus briefs have also been submitted by twelve distinguished securities law professors on the issue of market efficiency. They note that the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance has long been understood as placing a necessarily high burden on a defendant to prove that the alleged misrepresentation did not actually affect the stock’s market price, and that this burden should apply with equal force at the class certification stage. They contend that the Second Circuit should endorse this approach, as it best reflects the realities of the modern securities markets and the rationale behind the fraud-on-the-market doctrine.

Remarkably, another group of distinguished professors who teach, research, and write about the laws of evidence filed an amicus brief supporting certification as well. They argue that principles of the law of evidence dictate that, once plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of triggering the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, the burden of persuasion shifts to the defendants to rebut that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. Contrary to Petrobras’ argument, these evidence scholars, several of whom were involved in drafting the Federal Rules of Evidence, argue that with respect to the presumption of reliance under the securities laws, the congressional policy requires shifting the burden of persuasion to defendants in evaluating whether the presumption of reliance has been rebutted.

As the professors aptly note, Basic Inc. v. Levinson (“Basic”) and Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund recognize that such an allocation of the burden of persuasion is necessary to further Congress’s purpose underlying the securities laws: namely, to give investors reasonable protection when they buy and sell securities. Furthermore, the evidentiary scholars assert that the fraud-on-the-market presumption is triggered only on a substantial showing by plaintiffs, much greater than is required to trigger many other presumptions, and thus a defendant’s burden on rebuttal should be more substantial as well. Reference in Basic to the Advisory Committee note on the original version of Rule 301, which required a substantial rebuttal burden, supports the conclusion that a substantial rebuttal burden is required to rebut market efficiency. Indeed, most district courts have adopted the rule that defendants must rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.

Oral argument is scheduled for November 2, 2016.

Pomerantz Recognized As A Global Leader By The Legal 500

POMERANTZ MONITOR JULY/AUGUST 2016

Pomerantz is honored to have been chosen by The Legal 500 as a leading firm in 2016. The Legal 500 is the world’s largest legal source, with over 4.5 million viewers. It assesses law firms across the globe, selecting for its ranks only top-tier firms that are the most cutting-edge, innovative and successful.

Here’s what The Legal 500 has to say about Jeremy Lieberman, Pomerantz’s Co-Managing Partner:

“In New York, Jeremy Lieberman is ‘super impressive – a formidable adversary for any defense firm.”

Patrick Dahlstrom, Pomerantz’s Co-Managing Partner, says, “We have been at the forefront of shareholders’ rights and recoveries for corporate malfeasance in the United States for over 80 years, and are honored to be recognized by The Legal 500 as we work to expand those rights and remedies to investors around the globe.”

Has The Curtain Finally Fallen On The Galanis Family Of Fraudsters?

ATTORNEYS: H. ADAM PRUSSIN AND JESSICA N. DELL
POMERANTZ MONITOR JULY/AUGUST 2016

This month Jason Galanis and his father John Peter Galanis both entered guilty pleas for their roles in swindling Gerova Financial Group investors. They admitted to manipulating the company’s stock price using a maze of small companies and a straw buyer to conceal their involvement. They agreed to forfeit over $37 million in assets and will both be sentenced in December. Other alleged conspirators include Jason’s two brothers, Jared and Derek Galanis.

If the names sound familiar, it is because the family has bounced from one colorful financial scandal to the next for over thirty years. Five years ago, Pomerantz filed suit for Gerova Investors based on the same violations. That suit was successfully settled. The Galanii currently also face criminal charges alleging that they bilked $60 million from members of the Sioux Nation in South Dakota. In the last two decades, they have reportedly dabbled in gambling, porn, and Kosovo drug rings. It was reported that two months ago, while out on bail and facing criminal charges, Jason Galanis got drunk on an airplane and sent threatening texts to a former friend he thought was cooperating with federal investigators. His bail was consequently revoked.

Although Galanis Senior, the Bernie Madoff of the eighties, served years in prison, investors were never made whole. Throughout that decade, he faced a litany of charges, including stealing hundreds of millions from investors, and millions from the government in false tax deductions. In 1988 he was convicted on 44 felony counts and ultimately sentenced to 27 years in a federal prison. When the sentence was handed down, then U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani told the press he hoped it would send a message that: “those like Galanis...who are involved in multimillion-dollar frauds and corruption will realize that no matter how wealthy or how powerful they believe they are, no matter how complex their scheme, they too can be brought to justice.” If the sentence indeed had any deterrent effect, it was short-lived. Perhaps this time, by rounding them all up at once, we can hope again that U.S. District Attorney Bharara has succeeded in shuttering the Galanis family business for good. 

International Portfolio Monitoring And Its Increasing Importance To Pension Funds

ATTORNEY: JENNIFER PAFITI
POMERANTZ MONITOR JULY/AUGUST 2016

The United States sees hundreds of new securities class actions filed each year as well as approximately 100 class action settlements. For many institutional investors, the task of obtaining and tracking all this information is too complex and too expensive to do in-house; nevertheless, it remains essential that pension fund fiduciaries are regularly informed of the extent to which the value of the publicly traded investments they oversee may be diminished by financial misconduct. Increasingly, financial institutions have been turning, for help, to professional portfolio monitoring services.

Increasingly, fiduciaries must now also keep abreast of investor class actions filed abroad. In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, that U.S. federal securities law remedies were limited to investors that had purchased relevant securities only on a U.S. stock exchange. In the wake of this decision institutional investors began to realize that they could no longer limit their portfolio monitoring to activity in the U.S. They would need to have their global portfolio monitored by a team equally dedicated to both domestic and international monitoring services.

In the six years since the Morrison decision we have seen more and more litigation activity outside of the U.S.; in particular, (but not limited to) countries with collective redress procedures and securities laws closest to that of the U.S. In the past few years Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have emerged as front runners for pursuing shareholder class actions outside of the U.S. for varying reasons. Here, we examine those merging venues to better understand them.

In Canada and Australia, class action procedures and pro-investor measures have recently combined to allow a steady stream of offering and open-market type claims to yield substantial recoveries.

The number of securities class actions initiated in Australia is growing. An essential feature of the Australian class action system is that there must be seven or more plaintiffs with claims arising out of the same or similar circumstances with substantial common issues of fact or law in question. Compared with many overseas jurisdictions, this is a fairly low threshold and makes Australia a class action friendly jurisdiction.

Australia is officially an “opt-out” jurisdiction (meaning that to be excluded from a class, the class member must formally exclude himself or herself from the class), and employs a “loser pays” system where the losing party may be liable for both their legal costs and that of the prevailing party. This often means that parties will bring in external litigation funders who will take a percentage of the class recovery if successful and hold the fee “risk” if the case is lost. This has effectively resulted in “closed classes” in which only those class members who have agreed to litigation funding are included in the class action and can participate in any recovery. To date, no securities class action filed against a publicly traded company in Australia has proceeded to judgment. Instead, the claims that have concluded have been settled outside the courtroom.

Last year, Canada saw only four new securities class action filings, whereas the U.S. sees roughly 150 new securities class actions filed each year. Most Canadian provinces have adopted an “opt-out” procedure whereby an investor is automatically included in the class unless they affirmatively “opt-out.” Like Australia, Canada has an active third-party litigation funding regime requiring investors to “opt-in” in order to participate in any recovery.

The Netherlands is a unique jurisdiction in that Dutch law enables the formation of settlement foundations (stichting) to bring collective redress for parties wishing to create a binding, European-wide settlement. Resembling the U.S. “opt-out” system, parties have the right to “opt-out” during the defined period set by the court.

An interesting component of the Dutch settlement system is that a significant connection between the conduct complained of and the Dutch jurisdiction is not required. This has led to the suggestion that foreign parties may flock to the Netherlands to seek redress. Notwithstanding this, the Netherlands is yet to be described as a hotspot for international securities class actions.

Unlike the other jurisdictions described above, the U.K. lacks a class action procedure. However, a group litigation mechanism exists whereby individual cases involving the same circumstances against the same defendants are grouped together. Only those claimants who are affirmatively named are included in the litigation and bound by the judgment (similar to “opt-in”). The U.K. adopts an unattractive “loser pays” system. The absence of litigation funders, changes in after-the-event insurance and the “loser pays” system have deterred investors from filing suit there. Nevertheless, the case currently proceeding in the U.K. against the Royal Bank of Scotland (“RBS”), in connection with its 2008 rights issue, is unprecedented in the U.K. and is being closely watched in terms of how the group litigation is being managed and how any loser-pays costs will be distributed. In recent years there has been much demand in the U.K. for a U.S.-style class action procedure to be introduced into legislation. Some argue that, at present, the U.K. government has no interest in changing legislation that would open the floodgates for investors to sue RBS – a bank in which the government has an 83% stake.

Determining whether to become involved in securities litigation outside the U.S. requires examination of near identical issues to be considered when taking affirmative action in the U.S., in addition to consideration of varying jurisdictional statutes of limitations, cost issues, and analysis of what types of losses are compensable.

It is prudent that pension fund fiduciaries are provided with both domestic and international portfolio monitoring services, coupled with comprehensive legal advice so that they can make informed decisions on what action, if any, they take to recover their losses.

Note: Pomerantz provides a no-cost portfolio monitoring service whereby clients receive monthly, personalized reports quantifying losses in new actions relating to the U.S. and worldwide, providing legal advice in respect of those losses and highlighting upcoming claims filing deadlines for settled securities class actions in which the fund is eligible to participate. For more information, please contact the author of this article at: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

Why Bother To Investigate Before Bringing A Derivative Action?

ATTORNEY: GABRIEL HENRIQUEZ
POMERANTZ MONITOR JULY/AUGUST 2016

State law allows shareholders to bring derivative actions, under certain circumstances, seeking recovery on behalf of their corporations. Usually those cases allege that the directors of the corporation have breached their fiduciary duties to the company. Typically the directors, not shareholders, have the responsibility of deciding whether to bring such cases. Shareholders can “demand” that directors bring such a case, but if they do that, and the directors refuse, it is next to impossible for shareholders to pursue their case. But there are exceptions to this “demand” requirement in cases where plaintiffs can show that demand would be “futile.”

ALTHOUGH ONE MIGHT ASSUME THAT IT WOULD ALWAYS BE “FUTILE” TO DEMAND THAT DIRECTORS SUE THEMSELVES, THE LAW DOES NOT START WITH THAT ASSUMPTION. TO THE CONTRARY, DELAWARE COURTS, FOR EXAMPLE, REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFFS PLEAD SPECIFIC FACTS ESTABLISHING, IN ESSENCE, THAT IT IS LIKELY THAT THE DIRECTORS HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG, JUSTIFYING BRINGING AN ACTION AGAINST THEM. “CONCLUSORY,” NON-SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH. UNLESS SHAREHOLDERS HAVE ACCESS TO INSIDE INFORMATION FROM THE COMPANY, IT IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO SATISFY THIS STANDARD; AND COURTS HAVE DISMISSED SUCH CASES WITH DEPRESSING REGULARITY.

About 20 years ago, the Delaware Supreme Court started suggesting, in its opinions affirming dismissal of such cases, that the result might have been different if the shareholders had only done a better investigation of the facts before bringing the action. In particular, it pointed to Section 220 of the Delaware Corporation Act, which allows shareholders of Delaware corporations, before bringing a lawsuit, to demand the right to inspect the books and records of the corporation concerning potentially dubious transactions. Such inspections, the court noted, are the “tools at hand” that could in many cases provide the specific facts necessary to establish demand futility and allow a derivative case to go forward. The Delaware Chancery Court has exclusive jurisdiction to grant relief under Section 220.

But this prescription ignores the practicalities of derivative litigation. News of potential corporate wrongdoing typically leads to multiple lawsuits brought by shareholders, sometimes in different states. Because there is no law requiring that investors bring a books and records proceeding before filing a derivative case, some of these cases will be filed without a pre-filing inspection and they will proceed quickly, while shareholders who do file a books and records demand are still waiting for a resolution of that proceeding.

If all the relevant proceedings are brought in the same jurisdiction, such as Delaware, the courts will often stay the quick-filing cases to allow the books and records plaintiffs to catch up. But what happens if the first filed cases are brought out of state, are not stayed, and are dismissed on “demand futility” grounds before the books and records plaintiffs have had a chance to build their case?

Two recent opinions from Delaware’s Court of Chancery are likely to change the ground rules in such situations.

In cases involving Lululemon and Wal-Mart, plaintiffs who had not availed themselves of Section 220 filed “conclusory” complaints outside of Delaware that were dismissed for failure to make demand on the directors to bring an action. At the same time, two different sets of plaintiffs completed their books and records inspections and then filed their respective derivative complaints in Delaware. Because the Section 220 actions took several years to complete, by the time these investors were able to bring their actions, the other, out of state derivative cases had already been dismissed. With the benefit of their inspection of corporate records, the complaints in the Delaware actions were far more specific and detailed than the out of state complaints had been.

Nevertheless, the Chancery Court dismissed the Delaware derivative lawsuits because it found that the courts in the non-Delaware proceedings had already decided that demand on the directors to bring these claims was not excused. As a result, the Delaware plaintiffs gained nothing from their years’-long efforts to investigate the case by using Section 220.

In Lululemon, the company’s founder was accused of insider trading after unloading a bulk of his shares the day after finding out that the company’s CEO intended to resign, but before that information was released to the public. In order to investigate diligently, one of the shareholder plaintiffs, represented by Pomerantz, filed a Section 220 action demanding corporate records from Lululemon in May 2013. Another Section 220 action was brought by another shareholder plaintiff in Delaware in October later that year. On April 2, 2014, the Chancery Court ordered Lululemon to produce documents relating to the sale of shares that occurred just before the public announcement of the CEO’s resignation. In July 2015, the Delaware plaintiffs filed their derivative lawsuit against Lululemon for breaches of fiduciary duties.

The first derivative lawsuits against Lululemon alleging breaches of fiduciary duties were filed in New York federal court after Pomerantz filed its Section 220 action in Delaware. Separate New York suits by two shareholder plaintiffs were filed in August 2013, but an amended complaint consolidating the two was filed January 17, 2014. In response to the New York case, Lululemon filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the New York plaintiffs failed to adequately allege demand futility. Pomerantz, on behalf of the Delaware plaintiffs, sought to intervene in the New York matter, requesting that the New York court stay the case pending resolution of the Section 220 action in Delaware, or in the alternative, to dismiss one of the breach of fiduciary duty claims without prejudice in order to allow it to move forward in Delaware.

The New York federal court denied Pomerantz’s requests and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Shortly thereafter, the Chancery Court in Delaware dismissed the Delaware derivative complaint, finding that the same claims and issues had already been adjudicated in New York.

The Lululemon decision comes on the heels of the Wal-Mart decision, rendered two months before, where diligent plaintiffs in Delaware got the short end of the stick following the dismissal of an analogous but poorly researched case in an Arkansas federal court. In 2012, a widely-publicized bribery scandal led shareholder plaintiffs to file lawsuits against Wal-Mart. In Delaware, the plaintiffs first filed a Section 220 action that took three years to resolve. They did not file their derivative action until July 2015. The Arkansas plaintiffs filed their derivative action without the benefit of making a books and records demand. Much like in Lululemon, Wal-Mart filed a motion to dismiss attacking the Arkansas plaintiffs’ failure to allege demand futility with sufficient facts. The Arkansas federal court agreed with Wal-Mart and dismissed the complaint; shortly thereafter, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed its derivative complaint on the grounds of issue preclusion.

Key to both decisions was the finding that there is no presumption of inadequacy for fast-filing plaintiffs, and that the level of detail between the competing complaints is irrelevant to the issue preclusion analysis. In other words, diligent plaintiffs who sought books and records before suing are stuck with the results of the quick-filing cases.

At the time, the distinctive circumstances of the Wal-Mart case tempered arguments in favor of de-emphasizing Section 220 actions. Indeed, rarely do Section 220 actions drag on for three years. However, coupled with the Lululemon decision, plaintiffs faced with the prospect of multi-jurisdiction litigation need to analyze the practical benefits of filing an action quickly rather than waiting for a books and records action to conclude—even if the former goes against the advice of the Chancery Court to make use of the “tools at hand.”

The Supreme Court Allows Investors To Pursue State Law Claims In State Court

ATTORNEY: JUSTIN NEMATZADEH
POMERANTZ MONITOR JULY/AUGUST 2016

Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act, such as securities fraud. But in some cases the same conduct can violate both the federal securities laws and state laws; and in some of those cases investors may choose, for a variety of tactical reasons, to bring their claims in state court, under state law only. Naturally, defendants look for ways to fight back. In class action cases, Congress passed a law a few years ago that effectively federalizes all state law cases challenging conduct that could have been pleaded as securities laws violations, whether investors pleaded federal claims or not. But that leaves open the question of when and whether claims brought by individual investors can proceed in state court.

In a case involving Merrill Lynch, the United States Supreme Court recently answered that question. It held that a state law case does not have to be brought in federal court just because defendants’ alleged conduct could also be a violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

In that case, former shareholders of Escala Group, Inc. sued Merrill Lynch and several other financial institutions for manipulating the price of Escala stock through “naked short sales” of its stock. In a typical short sale, the seller borrows stock from a broker, sells it to a buyer on the open market, and later purchases the same number of shares to return to the broker. The short seller pockets the potential stock price decline between the time of selling the borrowed shares and buying the replacement shares to pay back the broker’s loan.

But in a naked short sale, the seller has not borrowed the stock that he is selling short. In market manipulation cases, for example, defendants typically flood the market with a large number of sell orders, but it may not be possible to borrow enough shares to cover all these transactions. In those cases, the short seller may not be able to deliver the sold shares to the buyer when the transaction is scheduled to close. Naked short selling can drive down a company’s stock price, injuring investors. SEC regulations aim to curb market manipulation by prohibiting short sellers from intentionally failing to deliver securities.

In the Merrill Lynch case, plaintiffs sued defendants in New Jersey state court for naked short selling under several New Jersey statutes and common law causes of action. Although not alleging violations of the federal securities laws, the complaint catalogued past accusations against defendants for flouting securities regulations, couching the naked short-selling description in terms suggesting that defendants had again violated this regulation.

Defendants attempted to remove the case to federal court, plaintiffs objected, and the ensuing struggle played out all the way to the Supreme Court. There defendants argued that plaintiffs had explicitly or implicitly asserted that defendants had breached an Exchange Act duty, so the suit was “brought to enforce” that duty and gave federal court exclusive jurisdiction. Under this argument, the case would have remained in federal court even if plaintiffs had sought relief only under state law and could have prevailed without proving a breach of an Exchange Act duty. Plaintiffs countered by arguing that a suit is “brought to enforce” the Exchange Act’s duties only if the asserted causes of action were created by the Exchange Act, which was not the case here.

The Supreme Court adopted a middle ground, ultimately siding with plaintiffs and remanding the suit to state court. Adopting a “natural reading” of the exclusive jurisdiction provision, the Court held that it did not apply just because a complaint mentions a duty established by the Exchange Act. The Supreme Court held that exclusive federal jurisdiction applied only when a complaint (i) directly asserted an Exchange Act cause of action or (ii) asserted a state law cause of action that would require the plaintiff to demonstrate that defendants breached an Exchange Act duty. Plaintiffs’ suit would have fallen under the compass of the second prong of this interpretation if the New Jersey statutes made illegal “any violation of the Exchange Act involving naked short selling.”

Noting respect for state courts, the Supreme Court stated that its decisions reflected a “deeply felt and traditional reluctance . . . to expand the jurisdiction of federal courts through a broad reading of jurisdictional statutes.” Deference to state courts was stronger here to limit Section 27 of the Exchange Act’s mandated—rather than permitted— federal jurisdiction, depriving state courts of all ability to adjudicate claims. The Supreme Court stated that Congress likely contemplated that some complaints intermingling state and federal questions would be brought in state court by specifically affirming the capacity of state courts to adjudicate state law securities actions. Moreover, the exclusive jurisdiction provision does nothing to prevent state courts from resolving Exchange Act questions resulting from defenses or counterclaims.

After Merrill Lynch investors can avail themselves of the additional weapon of state court in suing for market manipulation by asserting causes of action under state laws that do not necessitate a showing of a federal-law breach. In doing so, they can even allege defendants’ federal-law violations for similar conduct.

Court Grants Final Approval Of $45 Million Groupon Settlement

POMERANTZ MONITOR JULY/AUGUST 2016

The Honorable Charles R. Norgle of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has granted final approval of the $45 million class settlement achieved in In re Groupon Securities Litigation, No 12 C 2450 (N.D. Ill.). The Pomerantz Firm was appointed lead counsel in 2012, and has vigorously litigated the case for nearly four years.“We are pleased to have reached this favorable settlement for class members,” Pomerantz partner Joshua Silverman stated.

The Pomerantz Firm reminds all investors who purchased shares in Groupon’s initial public offering, or between November 4, 2011 and March 30, 2012, that the Court has established a claims filing deadline of August 26, 2016.

Claims forms, class notice, and other important documents are available on the settlement website: www.grouponsecuritieslitigation.com

Huge Appraisal Remedy Awarded In Dell Merger Case

ATTORNEY: H. ADAM PRUSSIN
POMERANTZ MONITOR JULY/AUGUST 2016

In 2013, Michael Dell, the founder and CEO of computer manufacturer Dell, Inc., offered to take the company private at a price of $13.75 per share. Many investors were dissatisfied with the offer, but it was approved by a majority vote of the shareholders.

Many shareholders who voted against the deal elected to pursue an appraisal remedy, which allows dissenters to ask the court to determine the “fair value” of their shares. Appraisal petitions are representative actions brought on behalf of all investors pursuing appraisal, meaning only one dissenting shareholder needs to file a petition and prosecute the appraisal case on behalf of others. An appraisal differs significantly from typical shareholder lawsuits challenging mergers. Most notably, they don’t involve claims of wrongdoing. It is not necessary, for example, to show that the directors who negotiated and approved the transaction were conflicted, were negligent, or in some other way breached their fiduciary duties to investors. In fact, in the Dell case the court determined that no such violation had occurred and that the directors did everything they could to seek competitive bids for the company. Here, no competing bidder could be found who could challenge Michael Dell’s bid.

Nevertheless, dozens of shareholders were convinced that the price Dell paid was not “fair value,” as defined by Delaware law, and sought appraisal of their shares. Several of them were declared ineligible to pursue this remedy because they had failed, for one reason or another, to comply with Delaware’s byzantine rules for pursuing appraisal. In the end, 20 institutional investors were allowed to pursue their claims.

This spring, the Delaware Chancery Court issued a bombshell ruling in the appraisal case, finding that the “fair value” of Dell’s shares was $17.62 each, about 22 percent above the merger price of $13.75. Put another way, the court found that the $22.9 billion paid in the merger undervalued the company by about $6 billion. However, because only 20 investors were deemed qualified to pursue their appraisal remedy, they will get only about $35 million as a result of the decision, leaving almost $6 billion “on the table.”

Embarrassingly, among the disqualified shareholders were clients of T. Rowe Price, a mutual fund manager that had vociferously opposed the merger. Price accidently voted its clients’ shares in favor of the transaction and thereby disqualified them from pursuing an appraisal remedy. As an act of contrition Price reimbursed its clients $194 million – a pretty costly mistake.

The Dell appraisal decision may well add fuel to a recent upsurge in appraisal cases resulting from going private mergers. Increasingly, hedge funds and other aggressive investors have been snatching up shares of companies that are the subject of a takeover or going private proposals, in the expectation that they will file an appraisal case and make a killing in the transaction. From January 2015 to date, appraisal petitions were filed in about 15% of transactions eligible for appraisal. The results in these cases have been pretty good: an article in a trade journal, Securities Law 360, surveyed appraisal cases during the past 6 years, and found that the courts awarded large judgments to investors, above the merger price, much of the time. For example, in the Dole Food deal, it awarded a 20% premium; In the Safeway deal, 26%; Canon, 17.6%; Hesco, 75.5%; Orchard Enterprises, 127.8%; 3M Cogent, 8.5%; Cox Radio, 19.8%; Am. Commercial Lines, 15.6%; Golden Telecom, 19.5%; and Sunbelt Beverage, 148.8%. On top of these large premiums, the courts also awarded hefty interest on these awards. The appraisal statute requires the court to award interest on the award at a relatively high rate.

Sweet.

POMTalk: Defined Benefit Plans Truly Benefit Public Employees

ATTORNEY: JENNIFER PAFITI
POMERANTZ MONITOR MAY/JUNE 2016

As I visit institutional investor clients across America, a frequent topic of discussion is a cost/benefit analysis of defined benefit vs. defined contribution plans. As I will more fully explain below, research and experience have demonstrated that public pension funds and the employees they serve likely do best contributing to a defined benefit plan coupled with a portfolio monitoring service.

Most state, municipal, and county workers are covered by a traditional defined benefit plan.

The financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath led some public pension funds to consider shifting some or all of their pension systems from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan. In fact, six states have replaced their traditional defined benefit plan with a mandatory hybrid plan (which requires participation in both a defined benefit and a defined contribution plan): Georgia, Michigan, Rhode Island, Utah, Tennessee, and Virginia.

Prior to the financial crisis, while feeling the glow of the stock market’s stellar performance of the 1990’s, Michigan and Alaska introduced plans requiring all new hires to participate solely in a defined contribution plan. Meanwhile, California, Indiana, and Oregon adopted hybrid plans. Colorado and Ohio have introduced optional defined contribution plans. Enrollment in these plans has been modest, with most workers choosing to continue to maintain the protection against investment risk and the promise of an annuity that defined benefit plans offer. In Alaska, however, despite the fact that nearly three quarters of its public employees are not covered by Social Security, all new hires are required to join a defined contribution plan. The result is that Alaskan state workers and teachers hired since July 2006 do not have any form of defined benefit protection.

According to a 2014 study by Alicia H. Munnell, Jean-Pierre Aubry, and Mark Cafarelli of the Center for Retirement Research of Boston College, what motivated states to introduce a defined contribution plan differed before and after the financial crisis. Before 2008, some saw it as a way to offer employees an opportunity to manage their own money and participate directly in a rapidly rising stock market. In contrast, after the financial crisis, cost and risk factors motivated some states to make the shift.

A 2016 study by Nari Rhee and William B. Fornia of the University of California, Berkeley, modeled how retirement income would fare for teachers on three types of pension: (1) the current defined benefit offering from the $186 billion California State Teachers Retirement System (“CalSTRS”) for hires since 2013; (2) an idealized 409(k) plan (similar to defined contribution); and (3) a cash balance plan with guaranteed 7% interest on contribution. The result, in a nutshell: for the vast majority of California teachers (six out of seven), the CalSTRS defined benefit pension provided greater, more secure retirement income compared to a 401(k)-style plan.

Apart from the rewards of defined benefit plans touted by numerous studies, a significant benefit available to these plans—that is not available to defined contribution plans -- is that their investment portfolios may be monitored by professionals who are expert in identifying and evaluating losses attributable to financial misconduct, and providing advice to institutional investors on how best to maximize their potential recoveries worldwide. The United States sees hundreds of new securities fraud class actions filed each year, as well as approximately 100 class action settlements. Institutional investors that do not engage a portfolio monitoring service run the risk of leaving money on the table by not participating in settlement recoveries or taking affirmative action to recover their losses when appropriate.

Public pension funds that offer a defined benefit plan coupled with a portfolio monitoring service get top marks for ensuring that their employees will enjoy a secure and amply funded retirement. 

POMShorts

POMERANTZ MONITOR MAY/JUNE 2016

CFPB Proposes Rule to Override Arbitration Clauses in Contracts for Financial Transactions.

As the Monitor has reported, the Supreme Court opened the door recently to allowing companies to enforce arbitration clauses in contracts with their customers, which would bar class actions. Because most consumer claims are too small to warrant prosecution on an individual basis, this tactic has the potential to insulate these companies from any avenue of redress.

On May 5, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a proposed rule that would restore customers’ rights to bring class actions against financial firms. The rule would apply to bank accounts, credit cards and other types of consumer loans. As reported in the Times, the new rules would mean that lenders could not force people to agree to mandatory arbitration clauses that bar class actions when those customers sign up for financial products. The changes would not apply to existing accounts, though consumers would be free to pay off their old loans and open new accounts that are covered. The rule would apply only to the consumer financial companies that the agency regulates. It would not apply to arbitration clauses tucked into contracts for cellphone service, car rentals, nursing homes or employment.

The rules are not subject to Congressional approval.

Labor Department Issues Rule Imposing Fiduciary Duty on Brokers Who Advise Clients Investing in Retirement Products or Accounts.

Acting under authority conferred by ERISA, the Labor Department has finally issued a rule requiring brokers who give retirement advice to clients to enter into contracts with them affirming that they have a duty to recommend transactions only when they are in the client’s best interest. The current rule requires only that the investments they recommend be “suitable” for the clients, leaving room for brokers to recommend investments that generate the biggest fees for themselves, rather than those that are best for their customers.

For years the financial services industry has warned that this rule change would impose an enormous burden on them and on investors as well, whose costs (they say) would increase. But, as Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out recently in a letter to the SEC, some of the biggest objectors to the new rule have been telling their own shareholders that they have nothing to worry about if the fiduciary rule is adopted. That is like trying to have your cake and eating it too.

Warren sent her letter to the SEC because that agency has so far failed in its obligation to revise these rules for regular, non-retirement brokerage accounts and other advisory relationships, even though the Dodd Frank Act requires the agency to do so.

 Agencies Try To Rein In Executive Compensation.

In April the National Credit Union Administration unveiled its proposal to implement a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act by requiring that incentive compensation that top financial executives receive gets deferred for several years and that  firms put in clawback provisions so they can take back bonuses paid to executives responsible for significant losses or illegal actions.

The Dodd-Frank Act charged the NCUA, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission with writing rules or guidance that would restrict bonus and other incentive compensation for financial executives, in a bid to limit the temptation to take on excessive risk. Some of these other agencies, at least, are expected to echo the NCUA’s proposal.

U.S. financial regulators set up three different tiers for implementing rules, with executives at firms with $250 billion in assets facing the toughest restrictions, followed by those at firms with assets between $50 billion and $250 billion. Firms that have between $1 billion and $50 billion will be required to put in place risk-management, record-keeping and other monitoring tools.

 Nastiest Case in Delaware.

The Delaware courts, which handle serious matters of corporate governance, are well known for their decorum and high mindedness. But the Delaware Supreme Court is currently mulling the appeal in one of the nastiest, tackiest cases to hit that state in a long time. Alan Morelli, the former chairman of OptimisCorp., a California based healthcare company, is suing the directors who abruptly terminated him in 2012, after receiving accusations that Morelli had sexual relations with an employee and also sexually harassed her. Three of those directors filed their own action against the executive, claiming that in retaliation for their dismissal of him he launched a legal vendetta against them, using $12 million of company funds. After a six day trial last year, the Chancery Court dismissed Morelli’s claims against the directors, concluding that they were unproven. The vice chancellor added that his decision also reflected a sanction against Morelli for paying or threatening witnesses with criminal prosecution or civil action “based on questionable or baseless claims.” One female therapist who accused Morelli of sexual harassment later withdrew the claim, after receiving a promise of a $550,000 series of payments in exchange for her testimony.

During the argument of the appeal, Supreme Court Justice Strine asked whether Optimis is “one of the weirder companies that exists in the world,” observing that “one of the officers of the company was having a relationship with

Mr. Morelli’s ex-wife,” while Morelli, whose office was in his bedroom, was having relations with the employee who subsequently accused Morelli of harassment.

Eighth Circuit Makes it Too Easy to Rebut Presumption of Reliance

ATTORNEY: MURIELLE J. STEVEN WALSH
POMERANTZ MONITOR MAY/JUNE 2016

In a case called Halliburton II, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the presumption of reliance under the  fraud on the market theory,” which is critical to securities plaintiffs’ ability to show class-wide reliance on a company’s misstatements. But it also held that a defendant may rebut the presumption of reliance by showing that the alleged misstatements had no “price impact,” i.e. did not affect the price of the stock in question. Under Fed. R. Evid. 301, “the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption,” but the rule does not specify how much evidence must be produced, and Halliburton II did not shed any light on this issue, either. This raises the question: how much evidence is enough to rebut the presumption? Is any showing enough?

In Best Buy, the Eighth Circuit recently handed down the first federal appellate decision to attempt to answer those questions. It is widely accepted that price impact may be proven by evidence showing that either the price increased after an alleged misstatement or that the price decreased after the truth was revealed. In Best Buy, plaintiffs met one but not both of these elements. Specifically, plaintiffs challenged three statements the company made on September 14, 2010. First, it issued an early morning earnings release saying that it was increasing its EPS guidance by ten cents. In response, the stock price opened for trading at a price higher than the previous day’s close. The next two statements were made later that morning in a conference call with analysts, when the CEO and CFO stated that the company’s earnings were “essentially in line with our original expectations for the year” and that it was “on track to deliver and exceed our annual EPS guidance.” The stock price did not increase after the conference call statements. The allegedly corrective disclosure occurred on December 14, 2010, when Best Buy announced a decline in its fiscal third quarter sales and a reduction in its 2011 fiscal year EPS guidance, causing a 15% stock price drop.

In an earlier decision, the district court held that the first misstatement, the early morning earnings release, was not actionable because it was a “forward-looking statement” with appropriate “cautionary language,” and was therefore covered by an Exchange Act “safe harbor” provision. The other two misstatements survived that motion and were the focus of the class certification motion, where defendants claimed that the misstatements did not move the market and that the presumption of class-wide reliance had therefore been rebutted.

In support of its class certification motion, plaintiffs submitted an expert report saying that Best Buy’s stock price had increased in reaction to all three September 14th statements, but did not parse how much of the increase was attributable to each individual statement. Defendants’ expert report said that there was no price impact from the conference call statements because the stock price increased only after the earlier morning press release, and not after the conference call occurred several hours later. In reply, plaintiff’s expert conceded that the conference call statements did not cause an immediate stock price increase, because it essentially just confirmed the representations in the previous early morning release. However, he said that the false statements that came afterwards maintained the artificially inflated price caused by that release.

The district court certified the class, recognizing that price impact (and therefore reliance) can be shown by a price decline in response to a corrective disclosure, and that defendants had failed to make any showing that Best Buy’s stock price did not in fact decrease after the negative news released on December 14th. The district court also found that the alleged misrepresentations could have prolonged the inflation of the price, or slowed the rate of fall, satisfying the “price maintenance” theory of “price impact.”

The Eighth Circuit reversed, pouncing on plaintiffs’ expert’s concession that the conference call statements did not move the stock price, and found that this was “strong evidence” sufficient to negate price impact and therefore class- wide reliance. The majority flatly rejected plaintiffs’ additional contention that the conference call statements caused a gradual increase in the stock price between September and December as “contrary to the efficient market hypothesis.” And the court largely ignored plaintiffs’ additional evidence of price impact, shown by the stock price decline after the corrective disclosure.

This decision is troublesome for several reasons.  Courts have generally found a presumption of reliance exists when shareholders show stock prices fell in response to a corrective disclosure. The Eighth Circuit did not follow that principle, focusing instead only on the front end of the supposed fraud, when misstatements had no obvious impact on the share price. The Eighth Circuit also explicitly rejected the price maintenance theory, which has been heavily relied upon by plaintiffs seeking to prove price impact where misstatements did not move the price of a company’s stock.

A decidedly pro-defendant decision, Best Buy shows that defendants facing securities fraud class actions can significantly narrow or eliminate liability during the class certification phase based on price impact arguments. If followed by other circuits, the decision could have significant negative consequences for securities actions, because false positive statements by a company often have little or no immediate impact on the company’s stock price.

Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Our Staar Surgical Complaint

ATTORNEY: MICHAEL J. WERNKE
POMERANTZ MONITOR MAY/JUNE 2016

Judge Fitzgerald of the Central District of California recently denied defendants’ motion to dismiss our action involving STAAR Surgical Company. The action alleges that the company, its CEO and its vice president of regulatory affairs violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as section 20(a), the “control person” provision.

STAAR is an FDA regulated company that designs, manufactures and sells implantable lenses to correct vision problems. In March of 2014, the company told investors that it believed that it was in compliance with all applicable FDA regulations despite the fact that an FDA inspection of STAAR’s plant was ongoing at the time and the inspector had repeatedly told management that numerous and significant FDA violations had been found. These violations are particularly important to STAAR and its investors because STAAR had a major new lens that was going before the FDA Advisory Panel in mid-March, and these violations would likely delay its approval. The company did not disclose these reports of violations, and investors did not hear about them until the FDA posted them on its website months later. At that point, STAAR’s stock price plunged 17.5%

 Defendants’ main argument for dismissal was that at the time they made their representations of compliance the violation reports were only preliminary and had not been formalized in written notices. The court rejected that argument, holding that because the FDA inspector had repeatedly identified the violations orally to management, defendants would have known that their statements of compliance would mislead investors. The court also held that the company had a duty to disclose the subsequent Warning Letter from the FDA, which stated that the new lens would not be approved by the FDA until the violations were remedied. The court held that, even though the company did not make any further “compliance” representations when it received the Warning Letter, it nevertheless had a duty to correct its prior statement on that subject.

This opinion is significant because it shows that a statement of compliance can be misleading as a result of the FDA inspector orally identifying violations. Prior cases had dealt with the company having receipt of a written notice of violation or Warning Letter.

Supremes: Statistical Averages Can Provide a Basis for Class-Wide Liability

ATTORNEY: AATIF IQBAL
POMERANTZ MONITOR MAY/JUNE 2016

In Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, the Supreme Court upheld the use of statistical sampling evidence in class actions, at least where such evidence would have been admissible in an individual action. Defendants had argued that such statistical methods improperly treated each individual as if he or she matched a statistical average, thus manufacturing predominance by assuming away the very individualized differences that made class-wide litigation inappropriate in the first place. The Court rejected this premise and focused instead on the relevance of the statistical evidence to the substantive claim at issue. It held that, if a given class member could have used the statistical evidence to obtain a favorable jury verdict in an individual action, then the class could use it the same way. It was up to the jury to decide, in light of all of the evidence presented, whether the statistical average was probative of the situation of each class member.

Particularly under the specific facts of the case, this ruling was a straightforward application of evidentiary common sense. Nevertheless, it was generally seen as a significant victory for the plaintiffs’ bar.

The case involved workers at a pork processing plant who claimed they were not paid overtime for time spent putting on and taking off protective gear, in violation of federal law requiring compensation for such “donning and doffing”  time if it is “integral and indispensable” to their regular work. After the district court certified two classes of employees, the case went to trial and the jury awarded the classes $29 million in damages. On appeal, the defendant argued that the verdict should be thrown out because the classes never should have been certified.

To be certified as a class, the worker-plaintiffs had to prove that they could establish key elements of their claims through generalized, class-wide proof. This was easy for some elements: they all worked in the same plant, had similar job responsibilities, and were subject to essentially the same compensation policies. But the defendant insisted that individualized inquiries into each employee’s total donning and doffing time were necessary because different employees wore different gear and took varying amounts of time to don and doff the gear. It also argued that no class could be certified without proof that every member was injured, which required individualized inquiries into each employee’s time.

Federal law, to some degree anticipating this evidentiary problem, has long required employers to keep accurate records of employee work hours. But despite a 1998 federal court injunction against the very same slaughterhouse requiring it to record employee time donning and doffing protective gear, Tyson Foods had never done so. Instead, it had been compensating workers based on its own approximations of how long those activities should take.

Because there was no good individualized evidence, the worker-plaintiffs used what they called “representative evidence” to show how long workers in each department generally took to don and doff protective gear. Most significantly, they presented a study by an industrial relations expert who drew on a representative sample of 774 videotaped observations of workers and calculated the average time for workers in each department to don and doff their gear.

There are procedural mechanisms to ensure the reliability of this kind of evidence, but the defendant largely ignored them. It did not challenge the expert’s qualifications or statistical methodology. It rejected the workers’ proposal to bifurcate the trial into separate proceedings for liability and damages. While it argued at trial that the expert’s calculations were too high, it did not present a rebuttal expert with different calculations. Instead, in opposing class certification and also at trial, it insisted that it was fundamentally improper to assume that each employee donned and doffed for the same time as the average in the sample. It decried being subjected to a “trial by formula” and barred from raising unspecified “defenses to individualized claims.” And on appeal, it called for a categorical rule barring the use of representative sampling evidence in class actions.

The Supreme Court rebuffed this effort and categorically rejected the idea that class actions required their own special set of evidentiary rules. It emphasized that statistical sampling evidence is routinely used in all kinds of litigation and is often the only practicable means, for plaintiffs and defendants in individual as well as class actions, to collect and present relevant data. Thus, it held that class certification was proper as long as a reasonable jury could have believed that the employees spent roughly equal time donning and doffing. If so, it was for a trial jury to weigh the expert’s average-time calculations against the other evidence presented and to decide whether the statistical average was probative of the time actually worked by each employee.

While the utility of statistical averages in other class actions will vary, the main takeaway is that the issue must be considered in practical terms of how a reasonable jury resolving the underlying substantive claim would view the evidence. In many cases, statistical averages will be the most compelling evidence available and will say a great deal about each member of the class. This was particularly true in Tyson Foods because the defendant had never bothered to keep individualized records (despite being legally mandated to do so), and instead simply paid workers based on its own approximations of how long donning and doffing should take. But in other cases with stronger evidence of meaningful individualized variations, a jury might find statistical averages less useful.