Source: https://www.classactiondefenseblog.com/category/20class-action-articles/50pslra-slusa-class-actions/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-08-17 15:33:34
Document Index: 621934116

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 20', '§ 10', '§ 1407', '§ 1407']

PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Category Archives — Page 2 of 12 — Class Action Defense Blog Published by Michael J. Hassen
Articles Posted in PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions
PSLRA Class Action Defense Cases–Indiana State District Counsel v. Omnicare: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Securities Fraud Class Action Noting Bad Corporate News Does Not Automatically Mean Securities Fraud
Class Action Alleging Securities Fraud Properly Dismissed because Class Action Complaint Failed to Meet Heightened Pleading Requirements Established by Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) Sixth Circuit Holds
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Omnicare and individual officers and directors of Omnicare alleging violations of federal securities laws; in the words of the Sixth Circuit, “Seizing on a few vague statements from management, the plaintiffs try to turn bad corporate news into a securities class action.” Indiana State Dist. Counsel of Laborers, etc. v. Omnicare, Inc., 583 F.3d 935 (6th Cir. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1, 2]. We do not here summarize the “sprawling and repetitive” allegations underlying the class action complaint, id., at 3; interested readers may find the Circuit Court’s summary at pages 3 through 7 of the opinion. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action, which the district court granted. See id., at 7-8. Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, id., at 8, the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Court summarized its holding at page 2 as follows, “Because the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (‘PSLRA’) forbids such alchemy, we generally affirm the district court’s dismissal, although we reverse its disposition regarding the claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933.”
The Sixth Circuit began its analysis by explaining that § 10(b) securities fraud claims must be pleaded with the same specificity as fraud claims under FRCP Rule 9(b). Omnicare, at 9. The Court further explained, “Bolstering this rule of specificity, the PSLRA imposes further pleading requirements…. First, the complaint must ‘specify each statement alleged to have been misleading’ along with ‘the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading.’… Second, plaintiffs must ‘state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.’” Id. (citations omitted). Under this standard, the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Circuit Court concluded that the statements challenged by the class action complaint were not material, see id., at 9-11, or failed to adequately allege loss causation, see id., at 11-12, or failed to establish that defendants knew Omnicare’s claims of “legal compliance” were false when made, see id., at 13-16.
Class Action Defense Cases–In re Sanofi-Aventis: New York Federal Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action Holding Class Action Complaint Failed To Adequately Plead Fraud Or Scienter
Class Action Complaint Alleging Securities Fraud Violations Arising from Disclosures Concerning Drug under Development Failed to State Claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Rule 10b-5 New York Federal Court Holds
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against French pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis and certain individual defendants alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendants misrepresented facts concerning the company’s “research activities and attempt to market a drug called ‘rimonabant’ used to treat obesity and related illnesses.” In re Sanofi-Aventis Sec. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (S.D.N.Y. September 25, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, during the approval process the FDA sent Sanofi an approval letter for the drug’s use in connection with obesity, but a non-approval letter with respect to the drug’s use as a smoking cessation aid.” Id., at 2-3. Additionally, the FDA expressed concern “that use of rimonabant in treating obesity might be associated with higher rates of suicidality and other mood disorders.” Id., at 3. However, defendants’ disclosures allegedly failed to disclose the scope of the FDA’s concerns. Id., at 4. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint. Id., at 1. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the class action complaint.
With respect to the class action’s claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, the federal court noted that “the complaint must explain why the allegedly misleading misstatements were fraudulent in order to satisfy the pleading standard of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” In re Sanofi-Aventis, at 5 (citation omitted). Based on the court’s analysis, the class action failed to identify any material misstatements or omissions sufficient to state a securities fraud claim. See id., at 5-10. Moreover, the class action complaint failed to satisfy the scienter requirement. See id., at 10-13. And because plaintiffs failed to “establish a primary violation of the securities laws,” the claims under Section 20(a), seeking to impose liability on the individual defendants, failed as a matter of law. Id., at 13. Accordingly, the district court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the class action complaint without leave to amend. Id., at 14.
Class Action Defense Cases–In re CP Ships: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Class Action Settlement Of Securities Fraud Class Action Holding Class Members Of Canadian Class Actions Could Opt Out
District Court did not Abuse its Discretion in Approving Class Action Settlement in Securities Fraud Class Action Filed in United States because Class Members with Claims in Canadian Class Actions were Provided Adequate Notice of the Right to Opt Out of the U.S. Class Action Settlement Eleventh Circuit Holds
Plaintiffs filed a class action against CP Ships, a container shipping company, and others alleging violations federal securities laws; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Belo – a media company that inter alia published the Dallas Morning News (DMN), which accounted for 30% of Belo’s revenue – “engaged in a fraudulent scheme designed to inflate DMN’s circulation artificially.” In re CP Ships Ltd. Securities Litig., 578 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defendant is organized under the laws of Canada, headquartered in England, and operates in several countries; 80% of the company’s stock is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX), and 20% is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Id. Additionally, “crucial headquarters activities – including the relevant operations and personnel that were central to the fraud (i.e. the accounting department and executive offices) – were located in Tampa, Florida.” Id. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, CP Ships acquired 9 business during a 10-year period, each with its own accounting system: the company eventually transitioned to a single accounting system, but later “announced that the transition had caused it to understate its operational costs” causing the stock price to drop by more than 20% on both the TSX and NYSE. Id. This class action complaint followed, as did lawsuits filed in Canada, id. Defense attorneys successfully moved to dismiss the U.S. class action on the grounds that the complaint failed to adequately plead scienter under the heightened pleading requirements established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), but while plaintiffs’ appeal from that order was pending, the parties negotiated a class action settlement. Id. The district court approved the settlement over various objections, including the objections of an individual who was also a class member in a Canadian class action that “the settlement would prevent some members of the Canadian class from pursuing their action in Canada.” Id., at 1-2. All class members were given notice and an opportunity to opt out of the U.S. class action settlement, id., at 1. One of the objectors appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
The objector leveled a multi-prong attack against the class action settlement: (1) the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims of class members who purchased foreign stock, or at the very least, as a matter of comity, should have declined to exercise jurisdiction over the dispute, (2) that the notice was inadequate, and (3) that the terms of the settlement were not fair, reasonable or adequate. In re CP Ships, at 1. The Circuit Court began by considering de novo whether subject matter jurisdiction was present over the dispute. Id., at 2. The Court found that the objector failed to raise a factual challenge to jurisdiction, see id., at 2-3, and concluded that the facial challenge to jurisdiction failed because jurisdiction exists under the “conduct test,” see id., at 3-6. The Eleventh Circuit then readily rejected the objector’s challenge to the adequacy of the notice, id., at 7, and turned to the adequacy of the class action settlement.
Class Action Defense Cases–Desai v. Deutsche Bank: Ninth Circuit Affirms Denial Of Class Action Treatment In Securities Fraud Class Action Case Holding Issue Of Reliance Defeated Predominance Prong Of Rule 23(b)(3)
District Court did not Abuse Discretion in Denying Class Action Certification in Securities Fraud Class Action because Reliance Required to Establish Securities Exchange Act § 10(b) Violation could not be Proven on a Class-Wide Basis Ninth Circuit Holds
Numerous putative class action complaints were filed against Deutsche Bank alleging securities fraud in the alleged manipulation of the stock price of GenesisIntermedia, Inc. (“GENI”); the class action lawsuit “followed the collapse of an elaborate stock manipulation scheme.” Desai v. Deutsche Bank Securities Ltd., ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 2245223, *1 (9th Cir. July 29, 2009). The class action litigation dragged on for more than 7 years without leaving the class certification stage, id., at *3. We do not here summarize the facts underlying the class action allegations or the tortured history of the class action litigation, including its trip from California to Minnesota and then back to California, see id., at *1-*3. Eventually, the class action complaint alleged violations of § 10(b) and § 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, id., at *2. And eventually, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which the district court denied, id., at *3. Plaintiffs then settled with the “last defendant standing” – Deutsche Bank – but reserved the right to appeal the district court order denying class action treatment to the lawsuit. Id. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Plaintiffs had sought to certify the lawsuit as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires a finding of both predominance of common issues of fact or law and superiority of the class action device as a mechanism for resolving the dispute. Desai, at *4. The district court refused to certify the litigation as a class action because it concluded that the predominance test had not been met; specifically, the district court found that the element of reliance – which is required to prove a violation of § 10(b) of the 1923 Act – would have to be proven “on an individual basis because they could not prove [reliance] class-wide.” Id. The Ninth Circuit explained, “A ruling on class certification ‘is subject to a very limited review and will be reversed only upon a strong showing that the district court’s decision was a clear abuse of discretion.’” Id. (citation omitted).
Class Action Defense Cases–In re HealthSouth: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Class Action Settlement Of Securities Fraud Class Action Including Bar Order Impacting CEO’s Indemnity Agreement With Company
Class Action Settlement Calling for Bar Order, Wiping Out Corporate Officer’s Indemnification Agreement and Advancement of Attorney Fees from Company Properly Approved by District Court Eleventh Circuit Holds
Plaintiffs filed a class action against HealthSouth Corporation and others, including its former chairman and CEO Richard M. Scrushy, alleging securities fraud; the class action complaint was filed in March 2003, after “HealthSouth acknowledged that its previous financial statements had substantially overstated its income and assets.” In re HealthSouth Corp. Sec. Litig., 572 F.3d 854, 2009 WL 1675398, *1 (11th Cir. 2009). According to the several class action complaints that were filed, defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Id. Ultimately, the class actions were consolidated in the Northern District of Alabama, and a partial settlement was reached between HealthSouth and the lead plaintiffs whereby HealthSouth would pay $445 million in settlement. Id. Scrushy was not a party to the settlement (having been prohibited from the mediation as the alleged mastermind of the fraud), and the district court approved the settlement over his objections, id. In part, the settlement included a bar order that extinguished “[Scrushy’s] contractual claims against HealthSouth for indemnification of settlement payments he might make to the underlying plaintiffs and extinguishes his claims for advancement of legal defense costs.” Id.
The basis of the appeal is that, in 1994, “Scrushy and HealthSouth executed an agreement requiring HealthSouth to indemnify Scrushy to the fullest extent permitted by law.” In re HealthSouth, at *1. Specifically, the indemnity agreement “require[d] HealthSouth to indemnify Scrushy for any judgment or settlement in any action in which he is sued for actions taken as a director or officer of the company, if he acted in good faith and reasonably believed he was acting in the best interest of the company.” Id. The bar order, however, wiped out any indemnity obligations, id. Scrushy’s objection was premised on the fact that the bar order “extinguished valuable and enforceable rights to which Scrushy was entitled under his indemnification agreement with HealthSouth.” Id., at *2. But “[t]he Bar Order is reciprocal, extinguishing similar claims by the settling defendants.” Id., at *2 (footnote omitted). The Eleventh Circuit reviewed Scrushy’s challenges to the settlement bar order for an abuse of discretion, id., at *3.
Class Action Defense Cases—In re Satyam: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Southern District Of New York
Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Other Class Action Plaintiffs or by Common Defendants, and Transfers Actions to Southern District of New York
Six class actions – one in California and five in New York – were filed against Orleans Homebuilders and OHB Homes alleging violations of federal securities laws; specifically, the class action complaints “arise from a purported massive financial scandal involving common defendant Satyam Computer Services, Ltd. (Satyam), one of India’s largest information technology and outsourcing companies.” In re Satyam Computer Services, Ltd., Securities Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 9, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the allegations underlying the class actions, “defendants deceived the investing public regarding Satyam’s business and finances, and thereby caused plaintiffs to purchase the company’s American Depositary Shares at artificially inflated prices.” Id. Plaintiffs in the California class action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407; initially, plaintiffs sought centralization in California, but ultimately agreed to centralization in the Southern District of New York, where the other five class actions were pending. Id. Only one class action plaintiff opposed centralization, id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, id. The Panel also agreed that the Southern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court because “Five of the six constituent actions, including the first-filed action, are already pending there, and the parties suggest that some discovery from accountants and banks may take place in the district.” Id., at 2.
Download PDF file of In re Satyam Computer Services, Ltd., Securities Litigation Transfer Order