Know the risks - Zurich

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• An enhanced standard of pleading, under which plaintiffs, to bring a securities fraudcase, must allege with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference of fraud• A mandatory stay of discovery while a motion to dismiss a complaint is pending• A lead plaintiff provision creating a presumption that the “most adequate plaintiff”is the one with the largest financial interest• A proportionate liability rule to replace joint and several liability, except withrespect to defendants found to have knowingly violated the securities lawsCongress subsequently enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of1998, the principal effects of which were to prohibit plaintiffs from prosecutingsecurities fraud class actions in state court and to prohibit plaintiffs from pursuingstate law claims as part of securities fraud class actions in federal court.The U.S. Supreme Court has issued several important decisions that further definethe high pleading standards imposed on plaintiffs in securities fraud lawsuits underthe 1934 Act.In addition to shareholders, directors owe duties to their institution that maybe enforced by the institution directly or by shareholders on behalf of theinstitution – derivatively.17Financial institutions guide
Claims by or on behalf ofthe institutionClaims by the institutionAn institution may bring a direct action against current or, more often, former directorsand officers for breaching duties to the institution or its shareholders. The institution’sboard of directors generally has the power to determine whether or not such a lawsuitshould be filed against the institution’s directors and officers and, if it is filed, controlsall strategic decisions regarding the litigation. When an institution is insolvent orbankrupt, an entity that “stands in the shoes” of the institution, like a trustee, receiver,liquidator, or the FDIC, may also initiate a claim directly against current or formerdirectors or officers of the institution. The plaintiffs in those cases will often allegethat the directors and officers fraudulently transferred or misappropriated funds, orengaged in gross mismanagement, causing the institution’s insolvency or bankruptcy.Derivative claimsA derivative action may be brought by one or more shareholders on behalf andfor the benefit of the institution to recover for losses or damages suffered by theinstitution. If a harm or loss is suffered directly by the institution, thereby reducingthe value of its assets, shareholders are usually required to bring a derivative lawsuit,rather than a direct lawsuit.Derivative lawsuits are frequently brought against incumbent directors who, becauseof their own self-interest, elect not to authorize such an action by the institutionagainst themselves or other directors. Recovery in a derivative lawsuit is paid to theinstitution, not to the shareholders who brought the action, although the fees andexpenses of the shareholders’ attorneys are usually paid if a favorable settlement orjudgment is obtained.Because a derivative action is brought on behalf of the corporation and becausedirectors are normally entitled to deference in their corporate decisions (including thedecision whether to pursue legal action), a shareholder seeking to bring a derivativeclaim usually must first either demand that the board authorize the company toprosecute the claim directly or demonstrate the futility of making such a demand. 37In the face of a derivative lawsuit, directors will often appoint a special litigationcommittee comprised of disinterested directors to independently evaluate whetherpursuing the proposed litigation is in the best interests of the corporation. Generally,if the committee is independent in both its investigation and conclusions, a court willdefer to the committee’s decisions whether continuing or terminating the litigation isin the best interest of the corporation.37 Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S.90 (1991); Levner v. Saud, 903 F. Supp. 452(S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff’d, 61 F.3d 8 (2d Cir. 1995).When the FDIC has taken control of a depository institution, FIRREA vests in theFDIC all rights and powers of a shareholder of the institution to bring a derivativeaction. Accordingly, in such instances, the FDIC has the right, power and privilege todemand corporate action or sue directors when action is not otherwise forthcoming.18Financial institutions guide
Page 6 and 7: • Reviewing how appropriate finan
Page 8: While the scope and application of
Page 11 and 12: agents, or servants of the [bank] t
Page 13 and 14: Sarbanes-OxleyThe Sarbanes-Oxley Ac
Page 15 and 16: duty; (2) that such violation, prac
Page 17: • employ any device, scheme or ar
Page 21 and 22: “In recent years, there hasbeen a
Page 23 and 24: • Copies of regulators’ examina
Page 25 and 26: Most indemnification statutes disti
Page 27 and 28: • An institution may be insolvent
Page 29 and 30: ConclusionCorporate indemnification

Know the risks - Zurich

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?