In re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation
| Decision Date | 15 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 02 Civ. 3288(DLC).,02 Civ. 3288(DLC). |
| Parties | In re WORLDCOM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates to: All Actions |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Max W. Berger, John P. Coffey, Steven B. Singer, Chad Johnson, Beata Gocyk-Farber, John C. Browne, Jennifer L. Edlind, David R. Hassel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY, Leonard Barrack, Gerald J. Rodos, Jeffrey W. Golan, Mark R. Rosen, Jeffrey A. Barrack, Pearlette V. Toussant, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Philadelphia, PA, for Lead Plaintiff in the Securities Litigation.
Jay B. Kasner, Susan L. Saltzstein, Cyrus Amir-Mokri, Steven J. Kolleeny, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, Thomas J. Nolan, Jason D. Russell, Los Angeles, CA, for Underwriter Defendants.
George R. Kramer, Securities Industry Association, Washington, D.C., Marjorie E. Gross, The Bond Market Association, New York, NY, Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, NY, for amici curiae the Securities Industry Association and The Bond Market Association.
This Opinion addresses issues related to an underwriter's due diligence obligations. Following the conclusion of fact discovery, several of the parties in this consolidated securities class action arising from the collapse of WorldCom, Inc. ("WorldCom") have filed for summary judgment. This Opinion resolves the motions for summary judgment filed by Lead Plaintiff for the class, who seeks a declaration that certain of the WorldCom financials incorporated in the registration statements for two WorldCom bond offerings contained material misstatements; and by the underwriters for those same bond offerings, who seek a declaration that they have no liability for any false statements in the WorldCom financials that accompanied the registration statements or for the alleged omissions from those registration statements.
It is undisputed that at least as of early 2001 WorldCom executives engaged in a secretive scheme to manipulate WorldCom's public filings concerning WorldCom's financial condition. Because those public filings were incorporated into the registration statements for the two bond offerings, the underwriters are liable for those false statements unless they can show that they were sufficiently diligent in their investigation of WorldCom in connection with the bond offerings. Through these motions, the Lead Plaintiff emphasizes that the underwriters did almost no investigation of WorldCom in connection with their underwriting of the bond offerings for the company, and because they did essentially no investigation, will be unable to succeed with their defense that they were diligent. The Lead Plaintiff contends moreover that there were "red flags" that should have led the underwriters to question even the audited financials filed by WorldCom.
For their part, the underwriters emphasize that WorldCom management concealed the fraud from almost everyone within WorldCom, from WorldCom's outside auditor, and from the underwriters themselves. They assert that they were entitled to rely on WorldCom's audited financial statements as accurately describing the company's financial condition, and also on the comfort letters that WorldCom's outside auditor provided for the unaudited financial statements. While they have not moved for summary judgment on the adequacy of their due diligence efforts per se, they do argue that those efforts should not be measured solely by the work that they undertook in connection with the bond offerings themselves, but should be assessed against a background of their long term familiarity and work with the company. They also argue that much of the information that was allegedly omitted from the bond registration statements was already known to the public.
For the following reasons, the Lead Plaintiff's motion is granted in part. The underwriters' motion is also granted in part.
These summary judgment motions require, in varying amounts of detail, an understanding of the industry in which WorldCom operated, some of the accounting issues that affected the reliability of the WorldCom financial statements, and the due diligence work performed by the underwriters in connection with the two bond offerings. The facts recited here are either undisputed or as shown by the party resisting summary judgment, unless otherwise identified. A brief description of the history of this litigation and the context for the summary judgment motions precedes the factual recitation.
WorldCom announced a massive restatement of its financials on June 25, 2002. It reported its intention to restate its financial statements for 2001 and the first quarter of 2002. According to that announcement, "[a]s a result of an internal audit of the company's capital expenditure accounting, it was determined that certain transfers from line cost expenses1 to capital accounts during this period were not made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)." The amount of transfers was then estimated to be over $3.8 billion. Without the improper transfers, the company estimated that it would have reported a net loss for 2001 and the first quarter of 2002. On July 21, it filed for bankruptcy. A restatement of WorldCom's financials was issued in 2004 in connection with WorldCom's emergence from bankruptcy. WorldCom restated its financial information for the years ending 2000 and 2001. The restatement included approximately $76 billion in adjustments, which reduced WorldCom's net equity from approximately $50 billion to approximately minus $20 billion.
Securities litigation addressing the accuracy of WorldCom's financial statements commenced in the Spring of 2002. Those class actions filed in this district were consolidated on August 15, 2002. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("MDL Panel") transferred the securities litigation pending in federal courts to this district and all of the actions, both individual ("Individual Actions") and class actions, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes on December 23, 2002. In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.E.C. v. Tambone
...provisions would provide the necessary incentive to ensure their careful investigation of the offering." In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 346 F.Supp.2d 628, 662 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (quoting The Regulation of Securities Offerings, Securities Act Release No. 7606A, 63 Fed. Reg. 67174, 67230 (Dec.......
-
Sec. And Exch. v. Tambone
...Act Release No. 7606A, 63 Fed. Reg. 67174, 67230 (Dec. 4, 1998), 1998 WL 833389). Although underwriters are not insurers for offerings, id., Congress mandated that they "exercise diligence of a type commensurate with the confidence, both as to integrity and competence, that is placed in [th......
-
United States Sec. v. Brown
...account "was material-and had to be disclosed-even if Item 404 [of Regulation SK] did not require it"); In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 346 F.Supp.2d 628, 689 (S.D.N.Y.2004) ("[N]on-disclosure of an underwriteror issuer's conflicts of interest can constitute material omissions, even where......
-
Howard v. Arconic Inc.
...have identified no authority holding that Item 503(c) mandates risk disclosures in all circumstances. See In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig. , 346 F. Supp. 2d 628, 690–91 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("When and if a prospectus must include a risk factor disclosure pursuant to Item 503 does not appear to h......
-
Structured Thoughts - Volume 7, Issue 2 February 10, 2016
...letters to the FRB was recently extended from February 1, 2016 to February 16, 2016. Footnotes 1 In re WorldCom Inc. Sec. Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 628 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2 For additional discussion of this rule, please see our "Frequently Asked Questions About Rule 15a-6", available at: http......
-
EB-5 Due Diligence Matters: Industry At Point Of Inflection Regarding Securities Compliance
...confidence in the accuracy of an offering memorandum premised on audited financial statements." In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 628 (S.D.N.Y. Due diligence is an ongoing process in a private placement. Those involved in performing activities in a due diligence process shou......
-
TO CALL A DONKEY A RACEHORSE - THE FIDUCIARY DUTY MISNOMER IN CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW.
...(1969). (151.) See, e.g., In re Software Toolworks, Inc. Sec. Litig., 38 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 1999); In re Worldcom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 628 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Weinberger v. Jackson, No. C-89-2301, 1990 WL 260676 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, (152.) See, e.g., Rule 176(h), 17 C.F.R. [secti......
-
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Due-Diligence Failures: Should Comparative Responsibility Be Imposed on a Government-Sponsored Entity's Claims Brought Under Sections 11(a) and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933?
...securities implicated in the FHFA’s section 11(a) and 12(a)(2) claims. The court 179. See In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 628, 677 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (defining due diligence as requiring a meaningful investigation); Christian A. Young, Note, Looking Back on WorldCom : Address......
-
Risk and Reputation.
...from the company; they must also verify that data to a reasonable degree. Id. at 697. In In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation, 346 F. Supp. 2d 628 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), the court articulated that the investigation should be a "'thorough' or 'searching inquiry,'" id. at 678, and should " 'l......
-
Aiding and abetting, a Madoff family affair: why secondary actors should be held accountable for securities fraud through the restoration of the private right of action for aiding and abetting liability under the federal securities laws.
...applied its elements, including knowingly or recklessly providing substantial assistance). (249) See In re Worldcom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 628 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (describing the duty to investigate red flags that appear in a registration statement). See also Escott v. BarChris Cons......