Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc.

Decision Date19 May 2016
Docket Number15–5905.,Nos. 15–5903,s. 15–5903
Citation821 F.3d 780
PartiesAndrew M. STEIN, et al. (15–5903); Canale Funeral Directors, Inc., et al. (15–5905), Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. REGIONS MORGAN KEEGAN SELECT HIGH INCOME FUND, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

ARGUED: H. Naill Falls, Jr., Falls & Veach, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Peter Sean Fruin, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: H. Naill Falls, Jr., Falls & Veach, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Peter Sean Fruin, Kathryn Roe Eldridge, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, Alabama, Kevin C. Logue, Kevin P. Broughel, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, New York, Britt K. Latham, Joseph B. Crace, Jr., Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees.

Before: COLE, Chief Judge; CLAY and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

CLAY

, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs, investors seeking recovery for substantial investment losses, appeal the district court's dismissal of their actions filed pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k

, 77l, and 77o, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b–5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b–5, as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. We agree that these actions were untimely, and AFFIRM, but hold that they were barred by the applicable statutes of repose.

BACKGROUND
Factual Background

The remaining Plaintiffs on appeal, Andrew M. Stein, Stein Holdings, Inc., Stein Investments, LLC, (collectively, the Stein Plaintiffs), Warren Canale, and Canale Funeral Directors, Inc., (collectively, the Canale Plaintiffs), invested and lost significant amounts of money in five investment funds: the Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc., the RMK High Income Fund, the RMK Advantage Income Fund, the RMK Strategic Income Fund, and the RMK Multi–Sector High Income Fund, all of which are named as Defendants in this action (the Funds). The Select Fund is an open-end fund, while the rest are closed-end funds. After the Funds lost nearly 90% of their value in 2007 and 2008, management of the four closed-end funds was turned over to a different investment advisor in July 2008. The remaining funds were deemed “unsalvageable” at an indeterminate date. Some regulatory activity ensued in subsequent years, but Plaintiffs allege no further misconduct by any Defendant after the transfer of the closed-end funds. When Plaintiffs filed this action in 2013, they also named as Defendants the Funds' investment advisor, Regions Investment Management, Inc., and Regions Investment Management's two corporate parents, RFC Financial Holding, LLC and Regions Financial Corporation.

Plaintiffs allege that these catastrophic losses occurred because the Funds were overvalued and heavily concentrated in certain types of risky securities. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants unlawfully concealed the Funds' risks, overvaluation, and lack of diversification from investors and the SEC, and Plaintiffs relied on these material misrepresentations of fact in deciding to invest in the Funds. All Plaintiffs have previously sought recourse for their losses—either in arbitration, in court, or both.

Canale Funeral Arbitration

Plaintiffs' contracts with Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc.—which underwrote and provided services to the Funds but is not a defendant in this case—contained an arbitration clause covering “all controversies between you and Morgan Keegan (or any of Morgan Keegan's present or former officers, directors, agents or employees) which may arise from any account or for any cause whatsoever.” (Stein R. 13–2 at Page ID 500; Canale R. 15–1, Client Agreement at Page ID 581.) In early 2008, Canale Funeral filed a statement of claim before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) alleging common law negligence and unsuitability, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of loyalty, breach of contract, common law fraud and misrepresentation, and violations of the Tennessee Blue Sky Laws and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Canale Funeral's factual allegations were largely the same as in this action: the Funds made misrepresentations about the Funds' diversification, valuation, and degree of risk, on which Canale Funeral relied in deciding to invest in the Funds. These claims were denied with prejudice on July 10, 2009.

Stein Plaintiffs' Arbitration

On August 29, 2008, the Stein Plaintiffs filed a statement of claim against Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. before FINRA alleging that the Funds' illiquidity, risk, and valuation had been misrepresented. Unlike Canale Funeral, the Stein Plaintiffs alleged violations of federal securities laws, including various sections of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b–5, nearly all of which they invoke again in this action. In their statement of claim, the Stein Plaintiffs also asserted violations of the Tennessee Securities Act, National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) conduct rules, unsuitability, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, failure to supervise, breach of contract, fraud, vicarious liability, and civil conspiracy. FINRA granted $2,500,000 in damages for unsuitability, negligence, and failure to supervise but denied all other claims, including the federal law claims, on February 19, 2010.

Stein Plaintiffs' 2008 Lawsuit

On August 29, 2008—the same day that they filed their FINRA claim—the Stein Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Tennessee state court, which did not name any Defendant in the present action, making largely the same factual claims and alleging violation of federal securities laws and the Tennessee Securities Act, civil conspiracy, and professional negligence. After the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, but before the defendants had answered or filed a motion to dismiss, the Stein Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case. On December 31, 2008, the district court entered an order and judgment dismissing the case without prejudice.

The Rice Action

On February 25, 2009, some nineteen investors filed suit in Alabama state court over their losses from the Funds in a case called Grantland Rice II, et al. v. Regions Financial Corporation, et al. An amendment to the amended complaint filed on January 5, 2010 added the Stein Plaintiffs and Warren Canale (but not Canale Funeral) as plaintiffs. The second amended Rice complaint, which named only Regions Financial Corporation and Regions Investment Management of the current Defendants, described the collapse of the Funds, and alleged the same misrepresentations with respect to risk, liquidity, and diversification.1 The Rice plaintiffs framed their claims solely in terms of state law, claiming common-law misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, violation of several states' securities laws, negligent supervision, and conspiracy. After the trial court denied a motion to dismiss, the Rice defendants sought mandamus relief, which the Alabama Supreme Court granted in Ex parte Regions Fin. Corp., 67 So.3d 45 (Ala.2010)

. The Alabama Supreme Court, applying Maryland law, held that the Rice plaintiffs' claims were derivative and directed the trial court to dismiss the suit because the plaintiffs had not complied with Alabama procedural requirements for initiating a derivative action. Id. at 55–56. The trial court entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice on January 17, 2011.

Actions by other plaintiffs

Plaintiffs in this action were hardly the only RMK investors to seek recourse in the courts. Two class actions, In re: Morgan Keegan Open–End Mutual Fund Litig., No. 2:07–cv–2784, and Willis, et al. v. Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. et al., No. 2:07–cv–2830, were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in December 2007. After numerous suits were filed in various fora, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the remaining lawsuits to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in February 2009. The district court provisionally certified a class for settlement purposes in In re: Morgan Keegan on November 30, 2015. The district court approved the settlement in Willis and certified the class action on August 5, 2013.

Procedural History

On October 25, 2013, the Stein Plaintiffs and the Canale Plaintiffs each filed nearly identical six-count complaints in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee alleging violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k

, 77l (a)(2), and 77o ; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a) ; and SEC Rule 10b–5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b–5, as well as common-law vicarious liability for violations of all these statutes and regulations. The Stein Plaintiffs amended their complaint once and the Canale Plaintiffs amended their complaint twice. In September 2014, after Defendants moved to dismiss both actions on a variety of grounds, the district court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motions to dismiss in nearly identical orders, in which it held that Plaintiffs' claims were not untimely under the applicable statutes of limitations and repose, and were not barred by res judicata. The district court also declined to dismiss them as derivative. Defendants moved for reconsideration in both cases, arguing that the district court had improperly held that Wyser–Pratte Mgmt. Co. v. Telxon Corp., 413 F.3d 553 (6th Cir.2005), was no longer binding precedent, and Wyser–Pratte obligated the district court to find that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the relevant statutes of limitations. Applying Wyser–Pratte, the district court granted the motions for reconsideration in both cases and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims in full on July 31, 2015 on the grounds that Plaintiffs' claims...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • Palma v. Johns
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 28, 2022
    ...including on grounds different from those on which the district court relied.’ " (quoting Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc. , 821 F.3d 780, 786 (6th Cir. 2016) )).That surely would be the result in most cases. But not here, we learn. Unwilling to accept the Palmas......
  • Snyder-Hill v. The Ohio State Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • September 14, 2022
    ... ... 2001); see Hicks ... v. Hines, Inc. , 826 F.2d 1543, 1544 (6th Cir. 1987) ... was a fifteen-year-old high-school student visiting Ohio ... State's ... Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, ... ...
  • Phillips v. DeWine
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • November 2, 2016
    ...to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc. , 821 F.3d 780, 785 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Cataldo v. U.S. Steel Corp. , 676 F.3d 542, 547 (6th Cir. 2012) ). Again, we construe the co......
  • Leonard v. Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • January 23, 2017
    ...modification of the decision or this Court sitting en banc overrules the prior decision.’ " Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc. , 821 F.3d 780, 789 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Elbe , 774 F.3d 885, 891 (6th Cir. 2014) ). Leonard has not pointed to any d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Private Antitrust Suits
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume I
    • February 2, 2022
    ...v. Powell, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39323, at *25-28 (M.D. Pa. 2012). 515. See, e.g., Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, 821 F.3d 780, 788-89 (6th Cir. 2016); Wyser-Pratte Mgmt. Co. v. Telxon Corp., 413 F.3d 553, 568-69 (6th Cir. 2005); Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Nationa......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2022
    ...1421 Stein v. Pacific Bell Tel. Co., 172 F. App’x 192 (9th Cir. 2006), 328, 1473 Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, 821 F.3d 780 (6th Cir. 2016), 874 Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1982), 813 Stelwagon Mfg. Co. v. Tarmac Roofing Sys., 63 F.3d 1267......
  • Class Actions
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 68-4, June 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...F.3d at 1247.114. Id. at 1248.115. 721 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2013).116. 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) (2012). 117. Dusek, 832 F.3d at 1248.118. Id.119. 821 F.3d 780 (6th Cir. 2016).120. Id. at 794.121. Dusek, 832 F.3d at 1248.122. Id. at 1249.123. Id.124. Id.125. 838 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2016).126. 29 U.S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT