Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

MGIC provides private insurance on mortgage loans and incurred large losses in the financial crunch that began with the decline of prices of securities based on packages of mortgage loans. Class-action suits filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were consolidated and were dismissed when the judge concluded that the complaint did not meet the standard set by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u–4(b). A single plaintiff appealed, based on fraud that allegedly occurred during MGIC's quarterly earnings call on July 19, 2007. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the complained-of statement was true and that the complaint failed PSLRA's requirement for pleading scienter. At most plaintiff could allege that MGIC’s managers should have seen the looming problem, and establish negligence rather than the state of mind required for fraud. MGIC's managers did not have any private information that they could have revealed. View "Fulton Cty Emp. Ret. Sys. v. MGIC Inv. Corp." on Justia Law

In 2010 the Seventh Circuit held that California law applied to plaintiff’s securities fraud claims and remanded because California, unlike federal securities law, permits a person who did not purchase or sell stock in reliance on a fraudulent representation to sue for damages. On remand the district court dismissed, ruling that the complaint did not adequately allege defendants' state of mind and plaintiff's reliance on particular false statements. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff never explained how he could have avoided loss on his shares, had there been earlier disclosure. Mismanagement, not fraud, caused the loss. Any fraud just delayed the inevitable and affected which investors bore the loss. Plaintiff cannot show that earlier disclosure would have enabled him to sell and shift the loss to others before the price dropped.View "Anderson v. AON Corp." on Justia Law

The brokerage entered into agreements with customers that set a fee for handling, postage, and insurance for mailing confirmation slips after each securities trade. Plaintiff filed claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking class certification and recovery of fees charged since 1998. The brokerage removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), or the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act 15 U.S.C. 78p(b) and (c) and 78bb(f), and obtained dismissal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first holding that SLUSA did not apply because any alleged misrepresentation was not material to decisions to buy or sell securities, but CAFA's general jurisdictional requirements were met. The agreement did not suggest that the fee represents actual costs, and it was not reasonable to read this into the agreement. Nor did the brokerage have an implied duty under New York law to charge a fee reasonably proportionate to actual costs where it notified customers in advance and they were free to decide whether to continue their accounts. View "Appert v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc." on Justia Law

In November 2010 Ladish agreed to be acquired by Allegheny for $24 cash plus .4556 shares of Allegheny stock per share. At the closing price after the announcement, the package was worth $46.75 per Ladish share, a premium of 59% relative to Ladish's trading price before the announcement. The transaction closed in May, 2011. Ladish became ATI. Investors' reactions implied that Allegheny bid too high: the price of its shares fell when the merger was announced. No Ladish shareholder dissented and demanded an appraisal. But one shareholder filed a suit seeking damages, claiming breach of federal securities law and Wisconsin corporate law by failing to disclose material facts. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings in defendants' favor. On appeal, the shareholder abandoned federal claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on the state law claims, citing the business judgment rule. View "Dixon v. Ladish Co. Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her husband divorced in 2002. He was an executive of defendant, a closely held corporation, a supermarket chain. The divorce decree transferred to wife some of his stock "until such time as [he] is first able to sell" them. He was to pay alimony until 2012 unless he sold the shares sooner and forwarded proceeds to wife. Wife claims that defendant's financial officer told her falsely that husband's shares could be sold only if he died, ceased to be employed by defendant, or ceased being employed in a position that entitled him to buy company stock. She claims she was induced to accept stock in lieu of a cash settlement and to agree that alimony payments would terminate as soon as husband was allowed to sell the stock. Less than two weeks after the earliest day on which husband could stop paying alimony, the company agreed to buy back the shares. The price was $908,000. Wife lost state court litigation and surrendered the shares in exchange $712,000. The district court dismissed, as untimely, wife's suit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that any violation occurred with the 2002 misrepresentation, more than five years before suit was filed.View "McCann v. Hy-Vee, Inc." on Justia Law

The district court dismissed a claim of breach of fiduciary duty, filed by owners of common stock in a closed-end investment fund, under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, which prohibits securities class actions if the class has more than 50 members, the suit is not exclusively derivative, relief is sought on the basis of state law, and the class action is brought by "any private party alleging a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security." 15 U.S.C. 78bb(f)(1). The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the suit alleged misrepresentation and misleading omission. The law is designed to prevent plaintiffs from migrating to state court in order to evade rules for federal securities litigation in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. View "Brown v. Calamos" on Justia Law

Companies filed suit, alleging that an employee engaged in a collusive trading scheme in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under section 9(a) of the Act, a private plaintiff must plead that: a series of transactions in a security created actual or apparent trading in that security or raised or depressed its market price; scienter; the purpose of the transactions was to induce the security's sale or purchase by others; plaintiffs relied on the transactions; and the transactions affected plaintiff's purchase or selling price. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The complaint adequately stated with particularity the circumstances constituting the securities fraud, and the economic loss impact on the plaintiffs as a result of the fraud and satisfied the pleading requirements of FRCP 9(b). View "Anchor Bank, FSB v. Hofer" on Justia Law

Davis learned that the government was suspending sale of new 30-year bonds.The information was embargoed until 10 AM. He passed the information to traders, who bought futures contracts with an eight-minute head start and reaped profits. The brokerage settled SEC charges. PPP sought to represent a class of traders who held short positions in futures when the brokerage took the long side. The district judge concluded that such a class would be unrelated to trading that occurred during eight minutes of October 31, 2001 and denied certification. Investors, all of whom held short positions during the eight minutes, filed their own suit. The court dismissed because the two-year limitations period (7 U.S.C. 25(c)), had expired, rejecting an argument that claims did not accrue until the SEC filed its complaint. Meanwhile PPP's proposal for a reduced class was rejected. PPP accepted an offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. The court rejected PPP's proposal to continue the suit. The investor suit plaintiff sought to intervene as class representative. The district court denied that motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. With respect to the limitations period, the court noted when the investors were aware of their harm. There cannot be a class action without a viable representative and there was no such representative involved in the appeal. View "Premium Plus Partners v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

The borrowers, former high-level employees, participated in the company’s shared investment program by purchasing company stock. The entire purchase price was funded by personal loans from banks. The company guaranteed the loans, received loan proceeds directly from the banks, and held the shares. Some participants made a profit, but in 2001 the company filed for bankruptcy. After settling with the lenders, the bankruptcy trustee filed actions against the borrowers. The district court ruled in favor of the trustee. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded. The borrowers may have enough evidence to satisfy the "in the business of supplying information" element of a negligent misrepresentation defense. The borrowers may raise margin Regulations G and U as an affirmative excuse-of-nonperformance defense; it is not clear whether the borrowers, the banks, the company, or the plan violated those regulations. Summary judgment on the Securities and Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Section 17(a) illegality defenses was also in error.View "Costello v. Grundon" on Justia Law

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission sued operators of commodity trading pools for fraud and related violations of the Commodity Exchange Act. Following earlier proceedings in the Seventh Circuit, the district court entered judgment against remaining defendants. Defendantâs assets of $104 million, 39% of the amount owed the investors in the pools, were placed in the control of a receiver. The district court approved the receiverâs proposed allocation of the assets among the investors, which excluded a claim filed by an Andorran bank as untimely and rejected a valuation claim by GAMAG. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court acted within its discretion in disallowing the bankâs claim, based on the bankâs neglect in pursuing its claim and the difficulty in recalculating the shares of the investors. GAMAGâs claim to be a creditor, rather than a shareholder, was properly rejected; its funds were commingled with and managed with the funds of the other investors and there was no difference in the level of risk.