Securities Class Actions and Supplemental Jurisdiction
In his Corporate Securities column, John C. Coffee Jr. writes: Everyone knows that 'Morrison v. National Australia Bank' ended the ability of those who purchased or sold securities outside the United States to participate in U.S. class actions. Everyone knows this—and therefore, unsurprisingly, it turns out to be not quite true. As usual, people miss the exceptions to generalizations that they think are universal rules. In fact, there are at least two routes that permit a foreign purchaser to participate in a U.S. class action. Neither has been much exploited to date, but both may be pushed aggressively in the near future.
May 15, 2019 at 12:45 PM
10 minute read
Everyone knows that Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010), ended the ability of those who purchased or sold securities outside the United States to participate in U.S. class actions. Everyone knows this—and therefore, unsurprisingly, it turns out to be not quite true. As usual, people miss the exceptions to generalizations that they think are universal rules. In fact, there are at least two routes that permit a foreign purchaser to participate in a U.S. class action. Neither has been much exploited to date, but both may be pushed aggressively in the near future.
First, although a litigation class cannot be certified unless it can be shown (without an individual inquiry into each class member) that only domestic purchasers or sellers are covered, a settlement class can be broader and can contain non-domestic purchasers or sellers. This was shown last year in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, 317 F. Supp. 3d 858 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), when Judge Rakoff certified the class and approved a $3 billion settlement against Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company, even though the Second Circuit had earlier reversed his certification of the class because the “domesticity” of various bond purchasers was in doubt. See In re Petrobras Secs. Litig., 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017). Because determination of the domesticity of the bond purchasers seemed to require an individualized inquiry, the Second Circuit had overturned Judge Rakoff's certification of the class, finding that it flunked the “predominance” requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (which requires common questions of law and fact to “predominate” over individual questions).
But then how could Judge Rakoff subsequently certify the class for settlement purposes? The answer lies in an aspect of Morrison that not everyone notices. Morrison said that Rule 10b-5 applies only in the cases of domestic transactions, but that this issue of domesticity was a “merits” issue and not an issue of subject matter jurisdiction. That means that, at settlement, the defendant can waive this issue (and Petrobras did). As Judge Rakoff explained, even a hopelessly non-meritorious case can be settled if the defendant is willing to waive “merits” issues.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1First Lawsuit Filed Alleging Contraceptive Depo-Provera Caused Brain Tumor
- 2BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 3The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 4The Growing Tension—And Opportunity—in Big Law Nonequity Tiers
- 5The 'Biden Effect' on Senior Attorneys: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250