Author: Werner R. Kranenburg

  • Wrapping it up, 29 May 2007

    It has taken six years and several settlements of US civil lawsuits for the criminal trial to commence in Belgium since the bankruptcy of Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products NV. (Wall Street Journal, subscription required; Belgian paper De Standaard’s expansive L&H file, in Flemish) Dexia and KPMG, both of whom have settled the civil litigation, are defendants in this trial, as well as a dozen company officials and a number of outsiders.

    It’s important to note that, under Belgian law, civil suits can only commence after the conclusion of criminal suits. This one is expected to take years, so the non-US individual shareholders so far excluded from relief will have to wait far longer than their US counterparts for an outcome.

    A collection of other noteworthy articles of the past few weeks in no particular order:

    And one more that anyone, especially of the plaintiffs or defense bar alike, is invited to comment on here or there: The Times‘ Don’t sue fellow shareholders, by columnist Graham Searjeant. What he says:

    Apart from pitching hedge and pension funds against small investors, it [‘uninsurable class actions from shareholders’] undermines the legitimacy of companies trying to maximise shareholder value.

    What’s more: Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP acted as Counsel in the Shell and Tyco actions (for the Opt-Out Plaintiffs and as Co-Lead Class Counsel, respectively), both of which are being referred to in the The Times article. Darren J. Check, a partner with the firm, has submitted the following comment in response to the article:

    [S]uch generalized statements that lawsuits and settlements are unfair are merely attacks on the plaintiffs bar with little substance to back the claims. While it is true that many of the current shareholders of companies like Tyco and Royal Dutch Shell may not have been shareholders during the time of the alleged fraud, there is a responsibility for companies to clean up the messes they have made and to do their best to compensate those investors that did suffer losses.

    In addition, these op-ed pieces often ignore the corporate governance changes achieved in many class action settlements and the deterence factor implicit in these settlements. Lastly, on fees, I would simply emphasize again that plaintiff’s attorneys bear a great deal of risk in these actions and the fees that they collect are much more like the 10% you saw in Shell and not the often publicized 33%-40%. The bottom line is that there is a role for litigation when it comes to investors, under the right circumstances.

  • PwC’s 2006 Securities Litigation Study

    Every year, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP releases a report on US securities class action litigation activity, reserving some space in the report to focus on non-US issuers. (download it from the press release)

    It names the 13 filers, from eight different countries and mostly from outside of Europe, which were subject of such actions last year (down from 19 the year before) and notes that this represents just 1 percent of the total 1,200 foreign issuers, in line with domestic issuers (93, 1.2 percent).

    Skip to pages 56 – 75 (from 60 of 82) for the two chapters on foreign issuers and two editorials, by Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP on the controversial US-UK Extradition Treaty and PwC on deregistration. For a general review, see the D&O Diary.

    What’s more: the Savett paper on the growing role of non-US investors in US securities class actions (see previous post) is now available, here. (Subscribe to WV&Z here; days left: 68)

  • What when where: class actions, Rome

    The International Bar Association and the American Bar Association present a conference on European class actions in Rome’s Grand Hotel Plaza on the 24th and 25th of May, next week. (programme including registration form)

    The conference, entitled Class actions at a crossroads: Europe’s choice between its own and the American model, focuses on the current status and legislative developments of class and collective actions here and on comparison with the US model.

    Key note speaker is Meglena Kuneva, European Commissioner for Consumers (invited) and other speakers, drawn from a mid-Atlantic pool of academics and practitioners, include:

    • Elizabeth J. Cabraser (Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP)
    • Professor John C. Coffee (Columbia University School of Law)
    • Patricia Hynes (Allen & Overy LLP)
    • Judge John G. Koeltl (SDNY)
    • Xavier Nyssen (Dechert LLP, Paris)
    • Nicola Walter Palmieri (General Counsel, Parmalat SpA)
    • Sherrie R. Savett (Berger & Montague PC)

    WV&Z will be there to cover the event.

  • Wrapping it up, 11 May 2007

    Legal Week and The Times last week reported on the latest development in the running story of plaintiff’s firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC‘s establishment of a London office, naming the two competition lawyers who will ‘spearhead [the firm’s] European push’.

    Legal Week this week reports of the reaction by the defense bar: Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP is the first to launch a class action defence practice in the UK. In the latter two articles a number of legal practitioners is quoted on these moves.

    Also worth a read are an article in the Financial Times (Risk Management section, subscription required) on derivative actions and the extraterritorial reach of US law in relation to D&O insurance in Europe and an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) which discusses ABN Amro’s current quagmire in the context of the ‘Dutch discount’ and the ‘polder model’.

    What’s more: prompted by Best in Class, with thanks, to update this post, the Blog of Legal Times has a follow up to the Skadden story. Asked for comment, Andrew L. Sandler, the Skadden partner mentioned in the original Legal Week article and quoted by BLT, confirms with WV&Z that “there is no new practice group and I am not going to London.”

  • WOL lotta trouble ABN Amro’s in

    ABN Amro Holding NV (Euronext, NYSE: ABN) got served a double defeat in Amsterdam courts Thursday, in cases regarding its role in the initial public offering of World On Line International NV (World Online, also commonly referred to as WOL) and regarding the sale of its US subsidiary ABN AMRO Bank North America Holding Company (LaSalle Bank) to Bank of America (NYSE: BAC). In both cases, the Vereniging van Effectenbezitters (Dutch Investors’ Association, VEB) had filed the petition with the court. (opinions: WOL, LaSalle, both in Dutch)

    Unsurprisingly, the next day’s headlines focused on the latter action in light of ABN Amro being on the target end of ‘the world’s largest banking deal’. (For more on the ABN Amro takeover battle, see for example the FT.com ABN Amro In depth section.) The VEB had sued ABN Amro to halt the sale of LaSalle, arguing that the transaction effectively served as a poison pill. The court agreed that the bank, considering the sale was linked to the takeover approach from Barclays Plc (LSE: BARC; NYSE: BCS), should have sought shareholder approval for the sale. Now ABN Amro may still seek that shareholder approval or appeal against the ruling by June 14.

    That noted, the M&A developments themselves do take place largely if not exclusively outside the scope of WV&Z, at least for now.

    The action against ABN Amro and its co-defendants Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and World Online on the other hand is well within the scope here. ABN Amro and Goldman Sachs, as well as World Online itself, have been found guilty of misleading investors in the events, including by way of the prospectus, leading up to the initial public offering of World Online shares and during a certain period of share trading thereafter. (WOL was subsequently taken over by Tiscali SpA (Borsa Italiana: TIS).)

    The Shell settlement – approval of which is pending before an Amsterdam court – was relatively big, an upcoming WOL settlement, based on the claim to follow this verdict, could be even bigger: VEB says that 150,000 investors (of which nearly 11,000 are VEB members) have lost €3 billion and it has indicated that the claim could run into the ‘hundreds of millions of euro’. (A partial defeat suffered by VEB in this case is that it has to revise how to administer the claim from the procedure presented to the court.)

    A settlement however is no certainty, as the parties may appeal the decision. Watch this space. (Days left: 79)

    What’s more: the day after the Enterprise Chamber’s ruling that the sale of LaSalle required shareholder approval, Bank of America filed a breach of contract action against ABN Amro (SDNY, Case number 1:07-cv-03578-PKC); see the complaint.

  • In re L&H: Dexia adds to settlement amount

    L&H’s former main commercial bank Dexia Bank Belgium and its parent Dexia SA (Euronext: DEXB, DX; formerly known as Artesia Banking Corp.), have settled the securities class action brought against them, in a case relating to In re Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products Securities Litigation. (Dexia press release) Their $60 million takes the total settlement amount to $180.52 million plus interest.

    Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel: Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP

    The L&H Securities Litigation website has been updated and now includes the Dexia notice and claim form. (Also see the memorandum and order denying Dexia’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.) The Court will hold a hearing on 22 June 2007 to decide whether to approve the settlement and the deadline for submission of the claim form is 21 August 2007 – for other dates, please see the notice.

    Note however that only NASDAQ purchasers are included in the class to which this settlement applies. The litigation on behalf of Easdaq purchasers continues (see previous post).

  • London – New York cross-listings, a study

    Today’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required) refers to a study, published earlier this month, on cross-listings on the New York and London stock exchanges. The name of the paper (not mentioned in the article) is Has New York Become Less Competitive in Global Markets? Evaluating Foreign Listing Choices over Time.

    From the paper’s abstract:

    We find that cross-listings have been falling on U.S. exchanges as well as on the Main Market in London. This decline in cross-listings is explained by changes in firm characteristics rather than by changes in the benefits of cross-listings. […] Our evidence is consistent with the theory that an exchange listing in New York has unique governance benefits for foreign firms. These benefits have not been seriously eroded by SOX and cannot be replicated through a London listing.

    Previous research papers by the three authors – Craig Doidge, G. Andrew Karolyi and René M. Stulz, all professors and according to the article ‘authorities on foreign-company listing decisions’ – include Why Do Countries Matter so Much for Corporate Governance? (abstract) and Why are foreign firms listed in the U.S. worth more? (paper).

  • Paulson’s piffle: “What’s in it for us?”

    Two magazines on ethics and corporations, Ethisphere Magazine (on its blog, here) and Ethical Corporation (here), have earlier this month published articles on class actions in Europe and corporate governance in America, respectively. The Ethisphere blog post, as commented on there by yours truly, elaborates on “class action attorneys’ respon[se] to EU’s plea to sue companies ‘American Style’”.

    The latter is far more interesting however, as it picks apart a statement on corporate governance and competitive corporations by US Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson. A quote:

    Correcting lawyer misbehavior has no logical connection to my right as a shareholder or a consumer to seek compensation for corporate misfeasance that harmed me – financially or otherwise. By damning the victim’s agent, the Treasury Secretary gets to blame the innocent victim with impunity.

    And the conclusion:

    So [Paulson’s plan is to] loosen corporation regulation, at least on securities issues, and protect companies from punishing shareholder lawsuits. Then corporations will show that they’ve earned these privileges. It’s rewards first, performance later. […] What’s on offer, then, to shareholders and consumers is piffle in exchange for the right to protect themselves. That is Secretary Paulson’s “principles-based” play here.

  • Webcast: non-US investors in US actions

    This is one for the diary: on Wednesday 9 May at 2.30pm BST (9.30am EDT), Adam T. Savett, of proxy agent Institutional Shareholder Services and its Securities Litigation Watch blog, will moderate a panel session, entitled Accountability Goes Global: International Investors and US Securities Class Actions. It’s one of a continuous series of ISS Governance Forum webcasts.

    The two panelists are Mark S. Willis, a partner at Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC, and an as of yet unnamed ‘European institutional investor’. Register here for the live webcast (or to access the archive later).

    The webcast will be followed by the publication of a white paper by Savett of the same title.

  • Wish me luck

    Posting will be lighter than usual over the next three months: I have applied to sit the New York State Bar examination in July. (Subscribe to WV&Z here.) Days to the exam: 93. Wish me luck…