Securities Litigation

Under the Ontario Securities Act (“OSA”), a statutory right of action exists for secondary market misrepresentation for any person who acquires or disposes of an issuer’s securities within the relevant time period.

A December 22, 2015 decision of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida in In re Ocwen Financial Corporation Securities Litigation illustrates the impact that an investigation and order of the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) may have on a plaintiff’s ability to allege actionable false statements by an issuer regarding its internal controls.

A January 4, 2016 opinion in the Southern District of Texas by Judge Keith Ellison (“Op.”) in the In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, MDL No. 4:10-md-2185, has taken up the issue of whether plaintiffs can properly assign their claims to entities created solely for the purpose of litigating those claims.

As a follow-up to our October 15 discussion about challenges to the standing of certain opt-out plaintiffs in the In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y.) consolidated litigation, Judge Rakoff has resolved those issues in two decisions.

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada offers both clarity and further questions on the timing of secondary market misrepresentation claims brought under the Ontario Securities Act (the "Securities Act").

Recent doubts have been raised as to the effectiveness of Dutch Foundations, which have become an important vehicle in foreign recoveries. While Dutch Foundations have negotiated settlements in some situations, some foreign commentators have begun to question their utility.

Since its inception, the concept of class action litigation – in a securities context or otherwise – has been met with arguments for and against it. 

The flurry of federal suits filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the past few months against several companies and individuals for alleged fraud and false statements in soliciting foreign investors under the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program shows that the government is taking a tougher approach to enforcement in the EB-5 space.

The Columbia Law Review has recently published an article, Is the Price Right: An Empirical Study of Fee-Setting in Securities Class Action, 115 Colum. L. Rev. 1371 (Oct. 2015), by Professors Lynn A. Baker, Michael A. Perino, and Charles Silver, with the involvement of Cornerstone Research, a litigation consulting firm. 

Recently, in Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household International, Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants’ Rule 39 motion for appellate costs and ordered the plaintiffs to pay a total of $13,281,282.

Recently, class plaintiffs moved for the preliminary approval of a $1.865 billion settlement of the Credit Default Swap Antitrust Litigation.

A recent motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in the In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y.) consolidated litigation challenges the standing of several institutional opt-out plaintiffs. 

Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, while seldom used in the past, has been increasingly used by institutional investors in suits against banks and other entities.

As we have mentioned previously, in the wake of Morrison v. National Australia Bank, securities plaintiffs are no longer able to assert claims under the U.S. securities laws to recover potential losses for transactions that occur on non-U.S. exchanges. 

We previously reported on what we thought at the time were “unusual” arguments from Vivendi Universal, S.A. (“Vivendi”) in its summary judgment motion in opposition to the recovery of certain class-action members in the long-running In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation, 02 Civ. 5571 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently issued a summary dismissal denying a number of objections to the Settlement Agreement reached in Hill v. State Street Corporation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a securities fraud class action against Harman International Industries Inc., holding that the “safe harbor” for forward looking statements did not apply to the statements at issue.  In re Harman Int’l Inds., Inc. Sec. Litig., -- F.3d --, No. 14-7017 (D.C.Cir. June 23, 2015).

With the increasing barriers to successfully prosecuting a securities fraud case in the United States, including the jurisdictional limitations caused by the Morrison decision, institutional investors are sometimes now looking to other jurisdictions to sometime recover their losses. 

The Southern District of Ohio recently reached an interesting decision that may be relevant to institutional investors in Pharos Capital Partners, L.P. v. Touche, L.L.P. (In re Nat’l Century Fin. Enters.), 905 F. Supp. 2d 814 (S.D. Ohio 2012).

The United States Court of Federal Claims recently issued an Order in Starr International Company, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-779C, regarding the consequences of an intentional waiver of the attorney-client privilege by the United States Government.