July 24, 2013

Cornerstone Releases Midyear Report

Cornerstone Research (in conjunction with the Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse) has released its 2013 midyear report on federal securities class action filings.

The findings for the first half of 2013 include:

(1) There were 74 filings, which was 16 percent higher than the second half of 2012 (but well below the historical average per six-month period). The increase is primarily the result of an increase in filings against technology and energy companies.

(2) Federal filings associated with M&A transactions remained at low levels. These actions now are being pursued primarily in state court.

(3) For filings in the years 2008 through 2010, a larger percentage of cases were dismissed than in prior years, with dismissal rates climbing significantly above 50%. One contributing factor, however, was the higher dismissal rates for M&A filings, which frequently were brought in federal court during this period.

Quote of note (Professor Grundfest - Stanford): "We are observing class certification challenges on the grounds that the fraud on the market doctrine should not apply. If this defense strategy is successful, and if the Supreme Court eventually backs away from the fraud on the market doctrine, then the class action securities fraud litigation market will likely shrink significantly. This potential evolution in legal doctrine likely represents the largest 'risk factor' for anyone trying to predict the future course of the securities fraud litigation market."

Posted by Lyle Roberts at 2:02 PM | TrackBack

July 12, 2013

Gossip Sessions

The use (and potential abuse) of confidential witnesses continues to be a controversial topic in securities class actions. Some court decisions, particularly in the Boeing securities litigation, have been sharply critical of how the plaintiffs' bar conducts its pre-filing investigations and decides what statements to include in its complaints. A recent decision from Judge Rakoff (S.D.N.Y), however, suggests that at least some of the problems may arise from witness "indiscretions."

In City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2013 WL 3389473 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2013), the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants subsequently deposed the confidential witnesses cited in the complaint and filed a "limited motion for summary judgment" arguing that these witnesses had either recanted their statements or never made them in the first place. The court held an evidentiary hearing, denied the motion, and the parties settled. Nevertheless, the court decided to issue a memorandum on the issue of the confidential witness statements.

In its memorandum, the court noted that the testimony presented by the five confidential witnesses suggested "that some, though not all, of the CWs had been lured by the [plaintiff's] investigator into stating as 'facts' what were often mere surmises, but then, when their indiscretions were revealed, felt pressured into denying outright statements they had actually made." The court took particular issue with two of the confidential witnesses claiming that they only had short calls with the investigator when the plaintiffs' phone records revealed that the main calls were both around an hour long. Moreover, two of the witnesses "confirmed the substance of the statements attributed to them in the Amended Complaint, while noting that such snippets did not always convey the nuances of what they had told [the investigator]." The fact that these witnesses testified to the accuracy of what the investigator had reported created an inference that the investigator's report "was accurate in all material respects."

Holding: Motion for summary judgment denied.

Quote of note: "It seems highly unlikely that Congress or the Supreme Court, in demanding a fair amount of evidentiary detail in securities class action complaints, intended to turn plaintiffs' counsel into corporate 'private eyes' who would entice naive or disgruntled employees into gossip sessions that might help support a federal lawsuit. Nor did they likely intend to place such employees in the unenviable position of having to account to their employers for such indiscretions, whether or not their statements were accurate. But, as it is, the combined effect of the PSLRA and cases like Tellabs are likely to make such problems endemic."

Posted by Lyle Roberts at 3:22 PM | TrackBack