Monday, September 22nd12.6°C
23284

Court seems open to changes in class-action suits against corporations for securities fraud

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed open to the possibility of making it harder for investors to join together to sue corporations for securities fraud — but maybe not as hard as companies that have to defend such lawsuits would like.

Most justices appeared unwilling to completely overturn a quarter-century-old decision that has helped investors launch class-action cases based on the effect misleading statements have on a company's stock price.

But some conservative justices — including Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has often been a swing vote — suggested a middle ground that would force investors to show earlier in a case that the alleged fraud actually caused the stock price to drop.

The justices heard arguments in an appeal by Halliburton Co. that seeks to block a class-action lawsuit claiming the energy services company inflated its stock price. A group of investors say they lost money when Halliburton's stock price dropped after revelations the company misrepresented revenues, understated its liability in asbestos litigation and overstated the benefits of a merger.

Halliburton lawyer Aaron Streett urged the court to overturn its 1988 decision in Basic v. Levinson — a case that sparked a tidal wave of securities-related, class-action lawsuits against publicly traded companies and has led to billions in settlements.

The Basic case says shareholders who claim they were defrauded by false statements in securities filings don't have to prove they actually relied on the statements. Rather, the court reasoned that any misrepresentation would be reflected in the current stock price. Even if investors are not aware of the misstatements, they are presumed to be aware of them because they affect the stock price.

This presumption, known as the "fraud-on-the-market theory," has become the driving force for modern class-action securities cases. But Streett said "it was wrong when it was decided and it is even more clearly erroneous today," because it doesn't account for the sometimes random and arbitrary nature of modern stock trading.

Four of the Supreme Court's conservative justices — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Kennedy and Samuel Alito — said in a ruling last year that they were willing to reconsider the Basic decision.

But during the arguments Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether overturning the case entirely was practical, saying different economists have opposing arguments over whether Basic remains sound.

"How am I supposed to review the economic literature and decide which of you is right on that?" Roberts asked.

Kennedy suggested seeking a middle ground that would leave the precedent largely intact but place another hurdle for investors to certify a class. The compromise, proposed by a group of law professors in a friend of the court brief, would require a special "event study" before a class is approved. The study would determine whether the company's alleged fraud actually had an effect on the stock price. If it did, then the class could be certified and the case could move forward. If not, then investors cannot win class certification.

David Boies, attorney for the investors suing Halliburton, argued that such event studies are time-consuming and costs and expenses for investors would "increase enormously." He argued that the court should keep the Basic decision intact because Congress has passed legislation over the past two decades assuming it is the law of the land.

More than 3,000 private class-action securities fraud lawsuits have been filed since 1997, generating more than $73 billion in settlements, according to a group of former Securities and Exchange Commission members who filed a brief urging the court to overturn the 1988 precedent.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers argue in court briefs that the current doctrine has led to significant costs for investors and businesses and bred confusion in the courts. But the Obama administration has urged the court not to overrule Basic, saying its premise remains sound.

The justices are expected to make a ruling before summer.

The case is Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc., 13-317.

___

Follow Sam Hananel on Twitter: http://twitter.com/SamHananelAP

The Canadian Press


Read more Business News

22970


Recent Trending




Today's Market

 
Okanagan Companies

 



22970

FEATURED Property
20653402481 Paramount Drive
4 bedrooms 4 baths
$649,900
more details
image2image2image2
Click here to feature your property
Please wait... loading


Is this a fair offer from ICBC?

“Is this a fair offer from ICBC?”…. “How much should I settle for?”… “What is my claim worth?” These are just some of the questions I regularly get as...


Disruptive innovation

Last night I was privileged to be able to speak at the Greater Westside Board of Trade business awards dinner. Photo: ContributedI talked about Innovation and Collaboration which are two very interes...


Executors and their duties

There will be a time when you will need to decide who you should appoint as executor of your Will. As well, there may be a time when you will be asked by someone to act as the executor of his or her W...

_



23448




Member of BC Press Council


22755