Court Opinion

ID: 8879566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 20:07:15.476962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:34.188071
License: Public Domain

FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
Agreeing with the result reached by the majority and with most of Judge Waterman’s searching opinion, I take a rather different approach to two facets of the case.
I.
The first is a situation that will not often arise, involving as it does the acceptance of stock options during a period when inside information likely to produce a rapid and substantial increase in the price of the stock was known to some of the grantees but unknown to those in charge of the granting. I suppose it would be clear, under Ruckle v. Roto American Corp., 339 F.2d 24 (2 *865Cir. 1964),1 that if a corporate officer having such knowledge persuaded an unknowing board of directors to grant him an option at a price approximating the current market, the option would be rescindable in an action under Rule 10b-5. It would seem, by the same token, that if, to make the pill easier to swallow, he urged the directors to include others lacking the knowledge he possessed, he would be liable for all the resulting damage. The novel problem in the instant case is to define the responsibility of officers when a directors’ committee ad-’ ministering a stock option plan proposes of its own initiative to make options available to them and others at a time when they know that the option price, geared to the market value of the stock, did not reflect a substantial increment likely to be realized in short order and was therefore unfair to the corporation.
A rule requiring a minor officer to reject an option so tendered would not comport with the realities either of human nature or of corporate life. If the SEC had appealed the ruling dismissing this portion of the complaint as to Holyk and Mollison, I would have upheld the dismissal quite apart from the special circumstance that a refusal on their part could well have broken the wall of secrecy it was important for TGS to preserve. Whatever they knew or didn’t know about Timmins, they were entitled to believe their superiors had reported the facts to the Option Committee unless they had information to the contrary. Stephens, Fogarty and Kline stand on an altogether different basis; as senior officers they had an obligation to inform the Committee that this was not the right time to grant options at 95% of the current price, Silence, when there is a duty to speak, can itself be a fraud. I am unimpressed with the argument that Stephens, Fogarty and Kline could not perform this duty on the peculiar facts of this case, because of the corporate need for secrecy during the land acquisition program. Non-management directors would not normally challenge a recommendation for postponement of an option plan from the President, the Executive Vice President, and the Vice President and General Counsel. Moreover, it should be possible for officers to communicate with directors, of all people, without fearing a breach of confidence. Hence, as °ne of the foregoing hypotheticals suggests, I am not at all sure that a company in the position of TGS might not have a claim against top officers wbo breached their duty of- disclosure f°r the entire damage suffered as a result of the untimely issuance of options, rather than merely one for rescission of the options issued to them.2
*866Since that issue is not before us, I merely make the reservation of my position clear.
II.
The second point, to me transcending in public importance all others in this important case, is the press release issued by TGS on April 12, 1964. This seems to me easier on the facts but harder on the law than it does to the majority.
No one has asserted, or reasonably could assert, that the purpose for issuing a release was anything but good. TGS felt it had a responsibility to protect would-by buyers of its shares from what it regarded as exaggerated rumors first in the Canadian and then in the New York City press, and none of the individual defendants sought to profit from the decline in the price of TGS stock caused by the release. I find it equally plain, as Judge Waterman’s opinion convincingly demonstrates, that the release did not properly convey the information in the hands of the draftsmen on April 12, even granting, as I would, that in a case like this a court should not set the standard of care too high. To say that the drilling at Timmins had afforded only “preliminary indications that more drilling would be required for proper evaluation cf this prospect,” was a wholly insufficient statement of what TGS knew. Cf. Gediman v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 299 F.2d 537, 545 (2 Cir. 1962). Since the issue of negligence is open to full review, Mamiye Bros v. Barber SS. Lines, 360 F.2d 774 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 835, 87 S.Ct. 80, 17 L.Ed. 2d 80 (1965); Esso Standard Oil, S.A. v. S.S. Gasbras Sul, 387 F.2d 573 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 914, 88 S.Ct. 1808, 20 L.Ed.2d 653 (May 21, 1968), I see no need for a remand on that score. It is an equally needless exercise to require the district court to determine whether a reasonable investor would have been misled. The text of the release and the three point drop in the market price following its issuance in the face of press reports that would normally have led to a large and, as matters developed, justified increase, are sufficient proof of that.
The majority says that negligent misstatement by a corporation is enough for injunctive relief under Rule 10b-5 (2) in a proper case; it reserves the question, not here presented, whether the corporation is liable for damages. I think the remand should make crystal clear that the issue whether this is a proper case for an injunction remains open, and that with 49 private actions pending in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, see 258 F.Supp. 262, 267 n. 1 (1966), some of which may involve this issue, we should explicate more clearly why, despite the principle that a violation of the securities laws or regulations generally gives rise to a private claim for damages, see J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964), violation of Rule 10b-5(2) may not do so under all circumstances, including those presented by the April 12 press release. The attention this case has received from the profession and our in banc consideration make it incumbent on us to give the district courts in our circuit as much guidance as we can.
A.
The consequences of holding that negligence in the drafting of a press release such as that of April 12, 1964, may impose civil liability on the corporation are frightening. As has been well said, of a situation where time pressures and consequent risks were less, “One source of perplexity as to the appropriate bounds of the civil remedy for mislead*867ing filings is that any remedy imposed against the issuer itself is indirectly imposed on all holders of the common stock, usually the most important segment of the total category of investors intended to be protected.” Milton Cohen, Truth in Securities Revisited, 79 Harv. L.Rev. 1340, 1370 (1967). Beyond this, a rule imposing civil liability in such cases would work directly counter to what the SEC has properly called “a commendable and growing recognition on the part of industry and the investment community of the importance of informing security holders and the public generally with respect to important business and financial developments.” Securities Act Interpretation Release No. 3844 (Oct. 8, 1957). If the only choices open to a corporation are either to remain silent and let false rumors do their work, or to make a communication, not legally required, at the risk that a slip of the pen or failure properly to amass or weigh the facts — all judged in the bright gleam of hindsight — will lead to large judgments, payable in the last analysis by innocent investors, for the benefit of speculators and their lawyers, most corporations would opt for the former.
The derivation of Rule 10b-5 is peculiar. Although the authority for the Rule comes from § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the draftsmen turned their backs on the language of that section and borrowed the words of § 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, simply broadening these to include frauds on the seller as well as on the buyer. So far as concerns paragraphs (1) and (3), this is not very important since these are clearly within the ambit of § 10(b) and relate to frauds that would give rise to civil liability in any event. But the case stands differently as to paragraph (2). The only provision in either the 1933 or the 1934 Act that can be read to impose liability for damages for negligent misrepresentation without restrictions as to the kinds of plaintiffs, due diligence defenses, a short statute of limitations, or an undertaking for costs that were insisted on by the investment community, is § 17(a) (2) of the Act of 1933— the source of Rule 10b-5(2).3 But there is unanimity among the commentators, including some who were in a peculiarly good position to know, that § 17(a) (2) of the 1933 Act — indeed the whole of § 17 — was intended only to afford a basis for injunctive relief and, on a proper showing, for criminal liability, and was never believed to supplement the actions for damages provided by §§ 11 and 12. See Landis, Liability Sections of Securities Act, 18 Am.Acct. 330, 331 (1933); Douglas and Bates, Federal Securities Act of 1933, 43 Yale L.J. 171, 181-82 (1933); 3 Loss, Securities Regulation 1785-86 (1961). When the House Committee Report listed the sections that “define the civil liabilities imposed by the Act” it pointed only to §§ 11 and 12 and stated that “[t]o impose a greater responsibility [than that provided by §§11 and 12] * * * would unnecessarily restrain the conscientious administration of honest business with no compensating advantage to the public." H.Rep.No.85, 73dCong., 1st Sess. 9-10 (1933). Once it had been established, however, that an aggrieved buyer has a private action under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act, there seemed little practical point in denying the existence of such an action under § 17 — with the important proviso that fraud, as distinct from mere negligence, must be alleged. See Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Corp., 188 F.2d 783, 787 n. 2 (2 Cir. 1951); Weber v. C. M. P. Corp., 242 F.Supp. 321, 322-325 (S.D.N.Y.1965) (Wyatt, J.); Thiele v. Shields, 131 F.Supp. 416, 419 (S.D N.Y.1955) (Kaufman, J.); but see Dack v. Shanman, 227 F.Supp. 26 (S.D. N.Y.1964). To go further than this, as *868Professor Loss powerfully argues, Securities Regulation at 1785, would totally undermine the carefully framed limitations imposed on the buyer’s right to recover granted by § 12(2) of the 1933 Act.
Even if, however, we were to disregard the teaching of Judge Frank in Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Corp., supra, 188 F.2d at 786, and follow the lead of those Circuits that seem to have discarded the scienter requirement in actions for damages under Rule 10b-5,4 Ellis v. Carter, 291 F.2d 270, 274 (9 Cir. 1961); Royal Air Properties, Inc. v. Smith, 312 F.2d 210, 212 (9 Cir. 1962); Kohler v. Kohler Co., 208 F.Supp. 808, 823 (E.D.Wisc.1962) (dictum), aff’d, 319 F.2d 634 (7 Cir. 1962); Stevens v. Vowell, 343 F.2d 374 (10 Cir. 1965); Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718 (8 Cir. 1967); we should not impose such expansive liability in a situation, markedly different from those considered in the cases just cited, where to do so would frustrate, not further, the larger goals of the securities laws. While I am not convinced that imposition of liability for damages under Rule 10b-5(2), absent a scienter requirement, even limited in the way just proposed, would not go beyond the authority vested in the Commission by § 10(b) to act against “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” and be so inconsistent with the general structure of the statutes as to be impermissible, it is at least clear that the April 12 press release would be the worst possible case for the award of damages for merely negligent misstatement, as distinguished from the kind of recklessness that is equivalent to wilful fraud, see SEC v. Frank, 388 F.2d 486, 489 (2 Cir. 1968).
The issue here, however, is the different one of an injunction. Mr. Justice Goldberg noted in SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, 375 U.S. 180, 193, 84 S.Ct. 275, 11 L.Ed.2d 237 (1963), that the elements of a cause of action for “fraud” vary “with the nature of the relief sought” and that “It is not necessary in a suit for equitable or prophylactic relief to establish all the elements required in a suit for money damages.” See also Mutual Shares Corp. v. Genesco, Inc., 384 F.2d 540, 547 (2 Cir. 1968). It can, indeed, be argued that, even on this basis, Rule 10b-5(2), absent the reading in of a scienter requirement, goes beyond the authority granted by § 10(b) of the 1934 Act. However, it cannot be doubted that one of the most important purposes of the securities legislation was to prevent improper information being circulated by the issuer, and I therefore am not disposed to hold that Congress meant to deny a power whose use in appropriate cases can be of such great public benefit and do so little harm to legitimate activity.
B.
However, it does not necessarily follow that this is an appropriate case for granting an injunction as to future press releases. While we have often said that “a cessation of the alleged objectionable activities by the defendant in contemplation of an SEC suit will not defeat the district court’s power to grant an injunction restraining continued activity,” SEC v. Boren, 283 F.2d 312 (2 Cir. 1960), and cases there cited, it is likewise true that an isolated violation, especially in the absence of bad faith, does not require such relief. SEC v. Torr, 87 F.2d 446 (2 Cir. 1937). Absent much clearer language than is found in the 1934 Act, the entitlement of a plaintiff to an injunction thereunder remains subject to principles of equitable dis*869cretion. The Supreme Court made this clear beyond peradventure in the leading ease of Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754 (1944). See 3 Loss, Securities Regulation 1975-83 (1961). Here there is no danger of repetition of an unduly gloomy press release like that of April 12. The essence of the SEC’s case is that Timmins was a once-in-a-lifetime affair; the company’s motive in issuing the release was laudable; and the defect was solely a pardonable one of execution. If Judge Bonsai had denied a injunction on these grounds, I see no basis on which we could properly have reversed him. Instead he acted on the view, erroneous in the court’s belief, that no violation of the Rule had. occurred and he was thus without power to enjoin, 258 F.Supp. 296. Although I see no reason why we could not affirm nevertheless, I am content to leave it for him to consider whether, although he has power to issue an injunction, there is equity in this portion of the bill. My concurrence in the disposition of the press release issue assumes that such consideration is permitted.

. Since none of the parties has raised the question, I assume the continuing vitality of Ruclcle, despite what have been regarded as contrary intimations in O’Neill v. Maytag, 339 F.2d 764 (2 Cir. 1964), a decision that has not found favor with other circuits. Cf. Dasho v. Susquehanna Corp., 380 F.2d 262 (7 Cir.), cert. denied, Bard v. Dasho, 389 U.S. 977, 88 S.Ct. 480, 19 L.Ed.2d 470 (1967); Pappas v. Moss, 393 F.2d 865 (3 Cir. 1968); see Jennings, Insider Trading in Corporate Securities: A Survey of Hazards and Disclosure Obligations under Rule 10b-5, 62 Nw.U.L.Rev. 809, 830-33 (1968). If we were writing on a clean slate, I would have some doubt whether the framers of the Securities Exchange Act intended § 10b to provide a remedy for an evil that had long been effectively handled by derivative actions for waste of corporate assets under state law simply because in a particular case the waste took the form of a sale of securities. We will shortly be exploring this issue in the in banc consideration of Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 2 Cir., 405 F.2d 215.

. Though the Board of Directors of TGS ratified the issuance of the options after the Timmins discovery had been fully publicized, it obviously was of the belief that Kline had committed no serious wrong in remaining silent. Throughout this litigation TGS has supported the legality of the actions of all the defendants —the company’s counsel having represented, among others, Stephens, Fogerty and Kline. Consequently, I agree with the majority in giving the Board’s action no weight here. If a fraud of this kind may ever be cured by ratification, com*866pare Continental Securities Co. v. Belmont, 206 N.Y. 7, 99 N.E. 138, 51 L.R.A., N.S., 112 (1912), with Claman v. Robertson, 164 Ohio St. 61, 128 N.E.2d 429 (1955); cf. Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 74 S.Ct 182, 98 L.Ed. 168 (1953), that cannot be done without an appreciation of the illegality of the conduct proposed to be excused, cf. United Hotels Co. v. Mealey, 147 F.2d 816, 819 (2 Cir. 1945).

. Of course, § 12(l)’s imposition of a liability almost absolute upon the seller of a security that has not been registered in violation of § 5 of the 1933 Act is grounded on distinctive concerns. See 3 Loss, Securities Regulation 1692-96 (1961).

. The imposition of liability on Clayton, Crawford and Coates for “beating the gun” does not require any such metamorphosis of Judge Frank’s concept of fraud as the majority opinion seeks to perform. The only one of these defendants who came close to a showing of good faith was Coates. But even he did not act on the belief that the second press release had in fact reached the market, see 258 F. Supp. at 288; his defense was rather a belief that the law required him only to await its issuance. While such an erroneous view of the law is pardonable, it is not “good faith” in a legal sense.