CorpLawBlog and 10b-5 Daily have both written about this case–In Re Merrill Lynch & Col., Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation (June 30, 2003)–which you can read about in today’s edition of the Wall Street Journal and here at FindLaw.com. The following paragraphs from the opinion written by Judge Milton Pollack of the Southern District of New York reveal his low opinion of the claims being brought:
At the times here involved, the stock markets were in the throes of a colossal “bubble” of panic proportions. Speculators abounded to capitalize on the opportunities presented by this bubble.The market “bubble” burst intervened before plaintiffs got out of their holdings and their holdings lost value. The plaintiffs, learning of the subsequent actions of the regulators concerning the conflicts mentioned above, rushed to the courts in these cases seeking to recover the losses they experienced due to the intervening cause, the burst of the bubble. . .
The record clearly reveals that plaintiffs were among the high-risk speculators who, knowing full well or being properly chargeable with appreciation of the unjustifiable risks they were undertaking in the extremely volatile and highly untested stocks at issue, now hope to twist the federal securities laws into a scheme of cost-free speculators’ insurance. Seeking to lay the blame for the enormous Internet Bubble solely at the feet of a single actor, Merrill Lynch, plaintiffs would have this Court conclude that the federal securities laws were meant to underwrite, subsidize, and encourage their rash speculation in joining a freewheeling casino that lured thousands obsessed with the fantasy of Olympian riches, but which delivered such riches to only a scant handful of lucky winners. Those few lucky winners, who are not before the Court, now hold the monies that the unlucky plaintiffs have lost — fair and square — and they will never return those monies to plaintiffs. Had plaintiffs themselves won the game instead of losing, they would have owed not a single penny of their winnings to those they left to hold the bag (or to defendants).
(Coincidentally, another New York federal judge, Harold Baer Jr., also dismissed class-action claims Tuesday against three other Wall Street firms by investors alleging losses on the stock of Covad Communications Co. Those firms were Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the Credit Suisse First Boston unit of Credit Suisse Group, and Morgan Stanley. The Wall Street Journal reports that Judge Baer’s ruling was made on narrower procedural grounds, didn’t include such fiery criticism of the plaintiffs, and wasn’t considered as likely to affect other cases.)
What’s the impact of this case on other litigation, including the post-Enron ERISA litigation which is going on in the courts and which has been discussed here frequently?
The Wall Street Journal reports John Coffee, a Columbia University professor who specializes in securities law, as saying that the ruling was “a significant victory for Merrill Lynch” and that it might well set a precedent in other similar cases. However, he said it might not apply to other situations where the analysts were so close to the management of companies they followed that they may have known about adverse information that they did not include in their reports.
It seems that the case should have little impact on the post-Enron 401(k) litigation involving company stock since those cases will focus on whether the ERISA fiduciaries involved were fulfilling or breaching their fiduciary duties under ERISA by continuing to invest in company stock and/or offer the company stock as an investment for participants. Many times the complaints have alleged fiduciaries had inside information which they had a duty to disclose to other fiduciaries and to the participants of the plans involved. It is doubtful that “the burst of the bubble” theory, in those cases, would be deemed to relieve ERISA fiduciaries from liability for losses incurred by participants where fiduciaries had inside information and/or failed to act with “procedural prudence.”