securities fraud
DESCRIPTION
Securities Fraud. Reliance (Transaction Causation) Private (silence) Public markets Loss Causation Proving Pleading. (last updated 23 Apr 12). Sup Ct 10(b) jurisprudence. * open questions. Securities Fraud Action. Rule 10b-5 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Securities Fraud
Reliance (Transaction Causation)Private (silence)
Public markets
Loss CausationProving
Pleading
(last updated 23 Apr 12)
![Page 2: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Sup Ct 10(b) jurisprudence 1970s / 1980s 2000s Gr
Transactional No privity Zandford A
Plaintiff Blue Chip Stamps Lead plaintiff* B
Defendant Central Bank Stoneridge / Janus C
Elements
(1) Materiality Basic Bespeaks caution* B
(2) Misrep Va Bankshares Stoneridge B
(3) Scienter Ernst & Ernst Tellabs / reckless* A
(4) Reliance Affiliated Ute / Basic Rebut presumption* A
(5) Causation/$ Circularity* Dura / Halliburton C
Procedural
(1) S/L Gilbertson / Huddleston SOX / Reynolds A
(2) Federal/state Santa Fe Dabit C
(3) Arbitration Shearson/Am Express FINRA / D-F* B
* open questions
![Page 3: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Securities Fraud Action
Rule 10b-5• Transaction (“in connection with
purchase or sale of securities”)• Plaintiff (“purchasers or sellers” /
except SEC)• Defendant (“primary violator” /
including company)• Elements
– Material misrepresentation or omission
– Scienter– Reliance– Causation– Damages
• Procedure – Jurisdictional nexus (federal court)– Statute of limitations / repose– Special rules for class actions
![Page 4: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Reliance in face-to-face transaction (when silence actionable) …
![Page 5: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Ute Development
Corporation
Tribe members
Non-member
First SecurityBank of Utah
Mixed-blood
Transferagent
Affiliated Ute Citizens v United States (US 1976)
![Page 6: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
“Under the circumstances of this case, involving primarily a failure to disclose, positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to recovery. All that is necessary is that the facts withheld be material ….
The obligation to disclose and this withholding of a material fact establish the requisite element of causation in fact.
Affiliated Ute Citizens v United States (US 1976)
Justice Harry Blackmun[MN lawyer]
![Page 7: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Reliance in public markets …
![Page 8: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
TimelineThe lies
– 10/21/77: news interview that “no reason for stock activity and no negotiations”
– 9/25/78: response to NYSE inquiry that “management unaware of development”
– 11/6/78: Quarterly report that “unaware of any developments”
The truth
– 12/18/78: announce tender offer by Combustion
Basic Inc v. Levinson (US 1988)
![Page 9: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis
![Page 10: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
“… in open and developed securities market .. Misleading statement defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do not directly rely on the misstatements.”
“… reliance is an element of a Rule 10b-5 cause of action.
“Presumptions typically serve to assist courts in managing circumstances in which direct proof for one reason or another is rendered difficult.”
How can presumption be overcome?
Basic Inc v. Levinson (US 1988)
Justice Harry Blackmun[MN lawyer]
![Page 11: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
“… I fear that the Court’s decision may have many adverse, unintended effects as it is applied and interpreted in the years to come.”
“… Court assumes buyers and sellers rely on the “integrity of the market price … which most mystifies me.”
Basic Inc v. Levinson (US 1988)
Justice Byron White[former football player]
![Page 12: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Big vs small companies
Big companies• Public disclosure• Many analysts• SEC investigation • Large damages
Small companies• Less publicized• Fewer analysts• No SEC interest• Smaller total damages
![Page 13: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Securities Fraud
Loss causationProving
Pleading
![Page 14: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
PSLRA [Exchange Act 21D(b)(4)]
… In any private action arising under this title, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving that the act or omission of the defendant alleged to violate this title caused the loss for which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages.
![Page 15: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Plaintiffs’ argument:
PL shows loss by showing that price inflated on day of purchase
Proving Loss Causation
Defendant’s argument:
PL must show that price drop actually related to prior false statements
![Page 16: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
“… .. At the moment the transaction takes place, the plaintiff has suffered no loss.”
“When the purchaser subsequently resells at a lower price … that price may reflect not the earlier misrepresentation but changes in economic circumstances.
The common law has long insisted that a plaintiff show … he suffered actual economic loss.
Securities laws maintain public confidence … [but] not broad insurance against market losses.
Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo (US 2005)
Justice Stephen Breyer(administrative law professor)
![Page 17: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
PSLRA [Exchange Act 21D(b)(4)]
… In any private action arising under this title, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving that the act or omission of the defendant alleged to violate this title caused the loss for which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages.
Rule 9(b) FRCP
In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.
![Page 18: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Plaintiffs’ argument:
PL alleges that false statements about asbestos liability, construction K revenues, and merger benefits were false and when disclosed resulted in stock price declines
Pleading Loss Causation
Defendant’s argument:
PL has not proved [alleged with specificity] that false statements caused declines in price; must show not result of extraneous circumstances
![Page 19: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
“We recognized in Basic individualized proof of reliance would prevent SFCA. Plaintiff must prove misrepresentation publicly known, market efficient, and relevant transaction before truth revealed.
“Requiring proof of loss causation is “not justified by Basic. … Compelling plaintiff to prove loss causation [plead with particularity] to invoke rebuttable presumption contravenes Basic’s fundamental premise – investor relies on market price.
Erica P John Fund v. Halliburton (US 2011)
Chief Justice John Roberts(appellate lawyer)
![Page 20: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
The end
![Page 21: Securities Fraud](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813a42550346895da2307c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Who pays?
Average settlement: $80 MMAverage attorney fees: 20%
2006 data2004 data2003 data
Atty feesoverview