Corporate Securities Law Blog

In Pyott v. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, No. 380, 2012, 2013 WL 1364695 (Del. Apr. 4, 2013), the Delaware Supreme Court held the Delaware Court of Chancery erred in refusing to dismiss a derivative complaint nearly identical to one brought by different stockholders in federal court in California, which the federal court had earlier dismissed for failure to plead demand futility. According to the Supreme Court, the Chancery Court’s constitutional obligation to give full faith and credit to other state and federal judgments required it to apply California (not Delaware) collateral estoppel law, and that law clearly precluded the Delaware action. The Supreme Court also held the federal plaintiffs’ failure to first conduct a books and records inspection of Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“Section 220”), 8 Del. Code § 220, before filing suit did not, by itself, give rise to an irrebuttable presumption that they had inadequately represented the corporation. The Court of Chancery had applied such presumption in further refusing to dismiss the Delaware action on collateral estoppel grounds. This decision provides greater certainty to Delaware corporations hit with derivative actions in multiple jurisdictions.

In City of Livonia Employee Retirement System v. Boeing Co., Nos. 12-1899, 12-2009 2013 WL 1197791 (7th Cir. Mar. 26, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Posner, J.) affirmed the dismissal of a securities fraud class action against the Boeing Company (“Boeing”) and remanded the question of whether sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be levied against plaintiffs’ counsel after allegations attributed to a confidential witness, which initially saved the case from dismissal, were later denied by the witness. The Court’s ruling provides a strong reminder that plaintiffs’ counsel in securities cases must exercise great care when using allegations of confidential witnesses to satisfy the heightened pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 (“Reform Act”).

In Levitt v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., No. 10-4596, 2013 WL 1007678 (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2013), theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court order certifying a class of shareholder fraud plaintiffs in a lawsuit against J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. and J.P. Morgan Clearing Corporation (“J.P. Morgan”). The decision reaffirms that a clearing broker generally owes no fiduciary duty to the owners of securities that pass through its hands. According to the Second Circuit, absent evidence that the clearing broker instigated or directed the alleged fraud by the securities issuer through high involvement, a plaintiff cannot establish a class-wide presumption of investor reliance sufficient to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In Greb v. Diamond Int’l Corp., 2013 WL 628328 (Cal. Feb. 21, 2013), the California Supreme Court unequivocally and unanimously laid to rest the assertion that dissolved foreign corporations may be sued in California after the time of the statute of limitations provided by the laws under which the foreign corporations were incorporated. In so holding, the California Supreme Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal for the First District’s dismissal of a personal injury claim against a dissolved Delaware corporation, holding that the claim was filed more than three years after dissolution of the corporation in violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 278 [blog article here]. In deciding that the California survival statute did not apply to foreign corporations, the Supreme Court resolved a split among California appellate courts on the interpretation of California Corporations Code Section 2010 (“Section 2010”), which governs the winding-up and survival of dissolved corporations.

In Lawson v. FMR LLC, No. 10-2240, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2085 (1st Cir. Feb. 3, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in a case of first impression, held that the whistleblower provision in Section 806 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (“SOX”), applies only to employees of public companies, and does not protect employees of private companies who are contractors or subcontractors for the covered public company. This decision, the first decision by a United States Court of Appeals on this issue, helps clarify the definition of “covered employee” under whistleblower provisions of SOX.

In two recent decisions, the United States Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Seventh Circuit each split with the Second Circuit’s 2010 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010), that corporations cannot be liable under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350. As we reported, the Second Circuit in Kiobel held that the scope of liability under the ATS does not extend to corporations because imposing liability on corporations for violations of the law of nations has not achieved a sufficiently “specific, universal, and obligatory” character so as to be considered a norm of customary international law. However, in Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co., No. 10-3675, 2011 WL 2675924 (7th Cir. July 11, 2011), and Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Nos. 09-7125, 09-7127, 09-7134, 09-7135, 2011 WL 2652384 (D.C. Cir. July 8, 2011), the D.C. and Seventh Circuits each concluded that the Second Circuit’s decision in Kiobel relied on factual inaccuracies and ignored the distinction between norms of conduct and remedies. The decisions deepen the circuit split on the question of corporate liability under the ATS, creating a likelihood that the conflict will be resolved by the United States Supreme Court.