TO HAVE AND TO HOLD (AND PERHAPS TO RECOVER DAMAGES)

To hold or to fold? That is the question. The stakes are high in two securities fraud cases pending in the Supreme Court. Both involve plaintiffs who suffered losses as a result of holding onto shares that later fell in value. Under federal securities law, a claim of fraud must be in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. So these plaintiffs sued under state law. But since 1998 federal law has also required that any class action based on allegations of fraud in connection with a purchase or sale must be litigated in federal court. (The worry was that plaintiffs had begun to sue in state court as a result of 1995 federal legislation designed to prevent abusive securities fraud class actions.) To be sure, there were a few fewer such cases filed last year: 176 compared to 213 in 2004. But as the Wall Street Journal recently opined, it is remarkable that plaintiff's lawyers could find that many cases to file in a time of such flat markets. The one factor that may account for such action in market for litigation is the Sarbanes Oxley Act, which coincidentally gives holders new grounds for griping.

In 1975, the Supreme Court handed down Blue Chip Stamps, holding that a prospective purchaser of stock who had been persuaded not to buy had no standing to sue for damages when the stock later increased dramatically in price. The case became a landmark, not only because it came to stand for the purchase or sale requirement, but also because it signaled the beginning of the Court's checkered campaign to limit the reach of federal securities law as a basis for private actions for damages. In 2002, the Court loosened up a bit but reaffirmed the rule in SEC v. Zandford, upholding an action against a broker who sold customer securities and then stole the money. 

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, in which the Second Circuit held that a claim by investors who were fraudulently induced to hold shares could proceed under state law. (It will likely hear that argument again now that Justice Alito has joined the court.)

The Court has also agreed to hear an appeal in Kircher v. Putnam Funds, in which the Seventh Circuit dismissed an action by holders of mutual fund shares who claimed that the value of their shares was reduced by abusive trading schemes that fund managers should have blocked.

It is usually a good bet that the Court takes a case in order to reverse it. But Dabit and Kircher are more or less polar opposites. The better bet would seem to be that the Court is likely to retreat from the somewhat expansive holding in Zandford and to side with the Seventh Circuit in Kircher.

That would be unfortunate. In Kircher, mutual fund investors saw their shares decline in value because of abusive trading by others in fund shares.

Clearly the fraud was in connection with those trades. As in Zandford, the net effect was as if shares has been stolen from investor accounts. Still, the plaintiff investors did not themselves trade.

Dabit is a case based on fraudulent investment advice coming from a broker. The argument is that the plaintiff class was induced to hold when it would have sold.

Some might argue that holders are different from the non-purchasers in Blue Chip Stamps. After all, holders once bought. They put their money where their mouth was. As they say on Wall Street, every hold is a buy. And indeed Judge Motz of the federal district court in

Baltimore

so held in a case very like Kircher, noting that Blue Chip Stamps is a judicial rule of convenience for a judicially created cause of action.

But there are dangers lurking in recognizing the claims of holders. Dabit could easily have made his claim against a company that issued a falsely optimistic press release, suing the company for losses suffered by all non-trading holders. If successful, the company would presumably be ordered to compensate holders for their losses. But what good would that do? For every dollar a holder gets in damages the company would decline in value by a dollar. What's the point? And incidentally, if we had a system in which holders could sue for compensation, the market would presumably react by discounting the stock price of a target company stock by the amount of the likely award, which would increase the award, and lead to a further discount in the price until -- guess what -- the stock is worth zip. It is the financial equivalent of a black hole.

On the other hand, holders are the real losers in the typical securities fraud class action. Buyers (or sellers in some cases) can sue. But the company ultimately pays. It is holders who lose. Indeed, in the typical case involving negative news that causes the price of defendant company stock to fall, holders suffer a triple whammy. They lose because the price falls. They lose because the company pays the damages (which causes the price to fall even more). And they lose because the litigation costs the company a small fortune in attorney fees. (Ironically, buyers and sellers come out about even over time because they never need to give back their gains when they are on the winning side of a trade.)

It would seem only fair to let holders recover. But it is mathematically impossible to make them whole.

The answer is to junk the system that permits securities fraud class actions by aggrieved investors. Claims based on the notion that one bought or sold stock at the wrong price should be summarily dismissed. For diversified investors, such claims come out in the wash anyway. Their only net effect, other than to generate hefty attorney fees, is leave holders worse off. In other words, we can fix things for holders by eliminating securities fraud class actions by which holders end up footing the bill for traders. That would let the loss lie where it falls with those best able to bear it through diversification. And it would end the effective subsidy that the system provides for stock pickers who persist in trying to beat the house in a world of efficient markets.

The situation in Kircher is different. There the claim is not one based on having bought or sold or held stock because an investor was fooled about the price. Rather the claim is one of simple (or not so simple) theft by something similar to insider trading. Moreover, the plaintiffs can be made whole if the culprits simply disgorge their ill gotten gains back to the fund. It is not a matter of taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another.

To be sure, the claim in Dabit is also against a third party. It is not a conventional class action against an issuer. But it is difficult to see how the courts permit an action by holders against a broker and not an action directly against an issuer. This is not to suggest that Dabit somehow should have had a federal claim. Dabit's claim is under state law. But it is still a direct claim for damages -- not unjust enrichment. So it is difficult to imagine that if Dabit is upheld holders will not have a claim against issuers in future cases.

The Court would be right to reverse Dabit and nip this trend in the bud. That is not to say that holders are not entitled to truthful information. Indeed, shortly after SLUSA was enacted, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that stockholders can sue when management knowingly spreads false information. But to do so they must show that the corporation was harmed. And recovery must go to the corporation. In other words, the claim must be one against directors, officers, or agents of the corporation -- not the corporation itself. In contrast, Dabit is a claim directly by investors who want compensation so they can live to trade another day.

There is another important difference between Dabit and Kircher. The plaintiffs in Kircher are mutual fund investors who presumably value diversification and conservative professional management and have eschewed a life of stock picking and active trading. Ironically, during oral argument, Dabit's lawyer disingenuously portrayed his clients as subscribing to the street wisdom of buy-and-hold. At least they happened to be holding when the music stopped in this case. The Kircher plaintiffs did the rational thing and got screwed. All they want is their money back. They should get it.

Comments

[Nike Air Max]

I don't know how to receive my responce. Waiting for your reply, tks!

http://www.nikeairmaxhop.com/

[Air Yeezy]

Your composition is very good. I like it very much.

[Asics Tiger]

This article wrote too good, I don't know what to say.

[MBT Sale]

Saw this article after this article, make me think big, really good.

[nike free shoes]

It is usually a good bet that the Court takes a case in order to reverse it.

[Nba Jerseys]

Nba Jerseys there are loads of duplicated which you can locate on-line to make certain which you conserve double the total amount on buying an reliable jersey. However, there are numerous ideas for you personally to purchase Sale Nfl Jerseys affordable onlinem With various key phrases entered into some lookup engine, you can possibly be astonished by these many results. Yes, you have this sort of You will principal desire to try wholesale affordable on in person or females past for you make any purchases.a substantial assortment to acquire amazing affordable out Nfl Jerseys For Sale.

[Christian Louboutin Outlet]

Sorry,i don't know how to receive my response, why?

http://www.christianlouboutindiscounts.com/

[Nike Air Jordan]

The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for circumstances they want , and if they cannot find them .they make them.

[Nike Free]

You have to believe in yourself.That's the secret of success.

[Cheap Dre Beats]

Cheap Dre Beats, another year graduation season, another year when the summer. "Naked Wedding Time" hit the, minutes away from the separation, together everything is scattered. This summer, there is love, respect Speak out! For decades, AKG has been a professional HIFI headphones global studio / professional audio benchmark, has been a number of professional musicians and high-end HIFI enthusiast of all ages, Vienna "Golden Hall" is the use of Beats By Dr Dre, K271MKII and K240MKII headphones and other AKG microphones and other equipment, in 2010, AKG audio in the world for its contribution to the field, won the "Grammy Technology Award Dr Dre Headphones."

[Griffey Shoes Sale]

bloody war of liberation in the countless heroic deeds of warriors, all confirmed the fear of oppression of JAC children, the blunt steel frame to resist bullying.

[Evering2010]

Thak you for sharing them with us , I think it's worth reading

[Air Max]

The nomination of the winner depends on the capability and spirit of the personality to finish the race.I like the post very much as it contain informative in knowledge.I like pics of Chelsea shares of the beauty of running in Madison, Wisconsin.I want to congratulate the winner for the nomination race.I want to know suggestion from others.

[Christian Louboutin]

Sorry,i don't know how to receive my response, why?

Christian Louboutin/Shoes/Sale/Cheap/Outlet/UK/Shop/Store/2011/Online/Discount/

http://www.christianlouboutinshoes-store.com/

[Nike Dunks]

All human wisdom is summed up in two words ?C wait and hope.http://www.airforce1dunksb.com/

[Retro Jordan Shoes]

It is not enough to be industrious, so are the ants. What are you industrious for?

[Onitsuka Tiger Shoes]

mean I just read through the entire article of yours and it was quite good but since I'm more of a visual learner,I found that to be more helpful.

[Cheap Abercrombie Fitch]

This article wrote too good, I don't know what to say.