In re Initial Public Offering Securities Lit.

Decision Date19 February 2003
Docket NumberNo. 21 MC 92(SAS).,21 MC 92(SAS).
Citation241 F.Supp.2d 281
PartiesIn re: INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Melvyn I. Weiss, Robert Wallner, Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, New York, NY, Stanley Bernstein, Robert Berg, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Gandolfo V. DiBlasi, Penny Shane, Sullivan & Cromwell, New York, NY, for Defendants (Underwriters).

Jack C. Auspitz, Matthew M. D'Amore, Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants (Issuers).

Nina F. Locker, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC, Palo Alto, CA, for Certain Issuer Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.

This Document Relates To: All Cases

                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
                 INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL
                I. INTRODUCTION.......................................293
                II. SYNOPSIS OF HOLDINGS..............................295
                III. SECURITIES LAW, HOT ISSUES MARK AND TIE-IN
                 AGREEMENTS.....................................298
                
                A. General Background on the Securities Act and Exchange Act............298
                B. Hot Issues Markets, Market Manipulation and Tie-in Agreements .......299
                 1. Hot Issues Market of 1959-1962 ....................................300
                 2. Hot Issues Market of 1967-1971 ....................................302
                 3. Hot Issues Market of 1979-1983.....................................305
                 4. Hot Issues Market of 1998-2000.....................................306
                IV. THE COMPLAINTS .....................................................308
                A. Individual Complaints................................................308
                 1. Factual Allegations and Allegation of Market Manipulation.........308
                 2. The Registration Statement's Misleading Statements and
                 Omissions ......................................................310
                 3. Claims ...........................................................314
                B. Part I of Master Allegations.........................................314
                 1. Tie-in Allegations and Undisclosed Compensation...................314
                 2. Statistical Analysis..............................................318
                 3. Matrix Illustrating Various Relationships Among Underwriters......319
                 4. Analyst Allegations...............................................319
                 5. Motivations of the Underwriters, Issuers and Individual
                 Defendants.....................................................320
                C. Part II and Part III of the Master Allegations.......................320
                GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
                V. PLEADING UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE..................321
                 A. Rule 8(a).........................................................322
                 B. Rule 9(b).........................................................324
                 1. Why Rule 9(b) Requires Particularity............................325
                 2. How Particularity Deters Claims of Fraud .......................326
                 3. Rule 9(b) Must Be Read in Harmony with Rule 8...................326
                VI. PLEADING SECURITIES FRAUD...........................................328
                 A. Pleading Securities Fraud Before 1995............................329
                 B. Pleading Securities Fraud After the PSLRA........................329
                 1. Paragraph (b)(1)...............................................329
                 2. Paragraph (b)(2)...............................................330
                VII. PRELIMINARY ISSUES.................................................331
                 A. Standard of Review..............................................331
                 1. The Court Must Take the Pleadings as True and Draw All
                 Inferences In Plaintiffs'..................................331
                 2. Both Defendants and the Court Must Accept the Complaints As
                 Pled........................................................332
                 3. Clarity of Pleadings Is Not a Factor in Dismissal ............333
                 B. The Pleading Standards for Some of the Claims Are Governed by
                 the PSLRA; Others are Governed by Both the PSLRA and the
                 Federal Rules...................................................333
                 1. The Differences Between the Scope of the PSLRA's Pleading
                 Requirements and Rule 9(b)...................................333
                 2. The Federal Rules Still Apply to Certain Types of Securities
                 Fraud Claim..................................................334
                 3. Summary........................................................335
                 APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
                VIII. SECTION 11 CLAIMS..................................................336
                 A. The Section 11 Claims Have Been Properly Pled...................336
                 1. The PSLRA's Pleading Standards Do Not Apply to Claims
                 Brought Under the Securities Act............................337
                
                 2. Rule 8(a) Applies to Sectition11..............................338
                 3. Plaintiffs Need Not Plead Reliance in Order to State Certain of
                 Their Section 11 Claim......................................342
                 4. Plaintiffs Need Not Plead that the Issuers and Individual
                 Defendants Had Knowledge in Order to State Section 11
                 Claims Against Those Defendant...............................342
                 B. Most Plaintiffs Have Stated Section 11 Claims Upon Which Relief
                 May Be Granted....................................................344
                 1. Plaintiffs Have Standing..........................................344
                 2. Plaintiffs Have Not Pled Allegations of Knowledge Inconsistent
                 With Their Claim..............................................344
                 3. Those Plaintiffs Who Sold Securities Above the Offering Price
                 Have No Damages and Therefore No Claim Upon Which
                 Relief Can Be Granted..........................................347
                IX. SECTION 15 CLAIMS....................................................351
                X. RULE 10B-5 CLAIMS FOR MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS AND
                 OMISSIONS AGAINST THE UNDERWRITERS, ISSUERS AND
                 INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS...............................................353
                 A. The Rule 10b-5 Claims for Material Misstatements Have Been
                 Properly Pl......................................................353
                 1. The Material Misstatement Claims Satisfy Paragraph (b)(1) of
                 the PSLRA—Particular......................................353
                 a. Paragraph (b)(1)'s First Two Requirements Have Been
                 Satisfied...................................................353
                 b. Paragraph (b)(1)'s Last Requirement Has Been Satisfied........354
                 2. The Material Misstatement Claims Satisfy Paragraph (b)(2) of
                 the PSLRA—Scienter...........................................359
                 a. Allocating Underwriters........................................360
                 b. Non-Allocating Underwriters....................................361
                 c. Individual Defendants..........................................362
                 i. The Motive Allegations Are Sufficient as to Sixty-Four
                 Defendants.....................................................366
                 ii. The Motive Allegations Are Insufficient as to 161
                 Defendants................................................366
                 d. Issuers .......................................................368
                 i. The Motive Allegations Are Sufficient as to 185 Issuers........370
                 ii. The Motive Allegations Are Insufficient as to 116
                 Issuers........................................................370
                 e. Summary........................................................371
                3. The Material Misstatement Claims Adequately Plead the
                 Remaining Elements of a Rule 10b-5 Claim: Transaction
                 Causation, Loss Causation, Reliance and Damages.....................372
                 a. Transaction Causation............................................375
                 b. Loss Causation and Damages.......................................377
                 B. Plaintiffs Have Stated Rule 10b-5 Claims For Material Misstatements
                 and Omissions Upon Which Relief May Be Granted....................378
                 1. The Misstatements and Omissions Are Material.....................379
                 2. All Defendants Had a Duty to Disclose............................380
                XI. RULE 10B-5 CLAIMS FOR MARKET MANIPULATION AGAINST
                 THE ALLOCATING UNDERWRITERS..........................................384
                 A. The Market Manipulation Claims Satisfy Paragraph (b)(2) of the
                 PSLRA—Scienter.............................................384
                 B. The Market Manipulation Claims Adequately State Claims Upon
                 Which Relief May Be Granted........................................385
                 1. Plaintiffs Adequately Plead "Deceptive or Manipulative
                 Conduct"......................................................387
                
                 2. College Bound II Is Not the Law 390
                XII. SECTION 20 CLAIMS..................................................392
                 CONCLUDING MATERIAL
                XIII. LEAVE TO REPLEAD....................................................397
                XIV. CONCLUSION...........................................................399
                 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
                 APPENDICES
                 A1. LIST OF CONSOLIDATED CASES ...................................416
                 A2. SECTION 11....................................................421
                 A3. SECTION 15....................................................422
                 A4. RULE 10b-5 CLAIMS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS...............422
                 A5. RULE 10b-5 CLAIMS AGAINST ISSUERS ............................426
                 A6. SECTION 20....................................................432
                
INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL

These cases allege a vast scheme to defraud the investing public. The scheme—characterized by Tie-in Agreements, Undisclosed Compensation, and analyst conflicts, and concealed by misrepresentations and omissions—was aimed at fraudulently driving up the price of stock in hundreds of companies in the immediate aftermarket of their initial public offerings ("IPOs"). Plaintiffs allege that investment banks routinely required substantial investors to participate in the scheme in order to receive allotments of these valuable IPOs. The companies going public and their officers profited handsomely by taking advantage of the inflated value of the stock to raise capital, enter into mergers and acquisitions, or sell...

To continue reading

Request your trial
206 cases
  • Malin v. Xl Capital Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • July 26, 2007
    ... ...         This action is a securities class action suit brought by various individual plaintiffs ... O'Hara signed all of the Company's public filings with the SEC during the Class Period and was the ... Statement and/or amendments to the Shelf Offering, the 2001 Report on Form 10-K and the 2002 Report on Form ... , perhaps in the $8.10 to $8.20 range per share as initial guidance." This was reiterated in an April 29, 2003 ... ...
  • In re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 19, 2003
    ... ... The false information appeared in analyst reports, press releases, public statements, and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ... statements issued in conjunction with WorldCom's May 2000 note offering ("2000 Offering") and May 2001 note offering ("2001 Offering," together ... Kellett also received from SSB 31,550 shares in "hot" initial public offerings ("IPOs"). In November 2000, Kellett entered a forward ... ...
  • Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 6, 2004
    ... ... BEAR, STEARNS & COMPANY, INC., Bear Stearns Securities Corp., Richard Harriton, Andrew Bressman, Arthur Bressman, ... 's business consisted of underwriting securities for initial public offerings. ( Id. ¶ 5.) Baron brokers used cold ... ¶ 91.) Baron placed 20% of the initial public offering with itself and its coconspirators, in violation of NASD ... ...
  • In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("Mtbe")
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 7, 2006
    ... ... 3 ("Exxon") alleging state law claims of (1) public nuisance, (2) private nuisance, (3) trespass to property, ... 16. In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 241 F.Supp.2d 281, 323 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
8 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Energy Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • January 1, 2009
    ...nom. Ill. ex rel. Burris v. Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co., 935 F.2d 1469 (7th Cir. 1991), 150 In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 241 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), 205 262 Energy Antitrust Handbook Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Mgmt., LLC, 223 F. Supp. 2d 474 (S.D.N.......
  • Market Manipulation Statutes and Rules
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Energy Antitrust Handbook
    • January 1, 2017
    ...in Energy Transfer , 120 F.E.R.C. at 61,458 and Amaranth , 120 F.E.R.C. at 61,431. 43 . In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 241 F. Supp. 2d 281, 297 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); see also CFTC v. Amaranth Advisors, LLC, 554 F. Supp. 2d 523, 534-35 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Markowski v. SEC , 274 F.3d 525, 5......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Energy Antitrust Handbook
    • January 1, 2017
    ...105 Indiana Farm Bureau Coop. Ass’n, Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 21,796 (Dec. 17, 1982), 243 In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 241 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), 220 Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Mgmt., LLC, 223 F. Supp. 2d 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), 221 J Jefferson Par......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Energy Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • June 29, 2009
    ...nom. Ill. ex rel. Burris v. Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co., 935 F.2d 1469 (7th Cir. 1991), 150 In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 241 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), 205 262 Energy Antitrust Handbook Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Mgmt., LLC, 223 F. Supp. 2d 474 (S.D.N.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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