Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Monday in CalPERS v. ANZ Securities.  Previously we provided a comprehensive overview of CalPERS’s brief.  In anticipation of oral arguments, below we discuss the arguments raised in ANZ’s brief and CalPERS’s reply.

In the long-running Halliburton securities litigation, a dispute has arisen between two rival class proponents.

On February 27, 2017, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) filed its brief with the Supreme Court, requesting that the Court reverse the decision of the Second Circuit and abrogate the Second Circuit’s ruling in Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. IndyMac MBC, Inc., as inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah.

We have been keeping up with the In re LendingClub Securities Litigation class action, No. 3:16-cv-02627-WHA in the Northern District of California (“LendingClub”), in regard to Judge William Alsup’s unusual decision to require additional briefing from the class plaintiff before agreeing to the class plaintiff’s choice of class counsel.

Recently introduced legislation pending before the U.S. House of Representatives attempts to make wide-sweeping reforms to the procedural rules governing class actions and, if implemented, could permanently alter the class action landscape and render class actions a “shadow of what we know today,” according to Reuters.

As discussed in this space before, Australia is quickly becoming a key venue for securities class action litigation. With the release of its decision in Money Max Int. Pty. Ltd. (Trustee) v. QBE Insurance Group Limited, the Federal Court of Australia took another step toward making Australia a class-friendly location.

As we have previously noted (here and here), Dutch Foundations (or Stichtings) have been considered a useful tool in seeking recovery for losses on foreign securities.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada had the opportunity to decide a specific issue with potentially large ramifications.  In Endean v. British Columbia (Endean), the Court considered whether judges of the Canadian Superior Courts have jurisdiction to hear motions in a different province. 

On November 4, 2016, Judge Keith Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted preliminary approval of a $175 million settlement in the federal securities class action In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation between BP and Lead Plaintiffs for the “post-explosion” class.

Recently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Court”) dismissed claims against Yahoo, Inc., holding that a 16-year old exemption granted to Yahoo by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) barred the plaintiff’s claims alleging that Yahoo was operating as an unregistered investment company in violation of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

We posted earlier about the surprising decision of Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California not to appoint lead counsel in the LendingClub class action cases at the same time he appointed a lead plaintiff.

On September 27, 2016, the Second Circuit ruled against a value investor in an opt-out action brought in the continuing Vivendi litigation. The recently issued opinion, however, does have positive implications for institutional investor class participants.

As detailed repeatedly in this space, the Canadian court system has issued a number of decisions which have altered the practice of bringing – or defending against – a securities class action for secondary market misrepresentation.

In a recent decision in the now-consolidated LendingClub class action cases, Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California appointed a lead plaintiff but unexpectedly declined to appoint lead counsel at the same time.

Although this blog is focused typically on opportunities for institutional investors to recover losses as class members or plaintiffs, we think this decision in Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners, Inc., may also be of interest.

The United States is a popular location for securities class actions, due in large part to its reputation as a generally plaintiff-friendly system. 

There have been several recent and interesting updates to the In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y.) that we have discussed several times on this blog.  First, the Second Circuit has decided to accept review of the class certification question. 

On June 29, 2016, the Dutch Court of East Brabant dismissed a foundation’s claims against Rabobank Group for alleged unlawful selling of interest rate swaps because it failed to meet the requirement of the Dutch Claim Code that a foundation sufficiently safeguard the interests of its members.

In January of 2016, this blog commented on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the seminal case of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green. 

Ever since the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), courts have been making their own interpretations of what Morrison means for whether certain transactions are “domestic” and thus amenable to class-action securities claims.