Tag Archives: 1933 Securities Act

FIRREA Wall

Posted on by

Courts have read the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) very broadly, giving the federal government a powerful weapon in its lawsuits against financial institutions regarding events relating to the financial crisis. Judge Swain (SDNY) has issued a rare Opinion and Order limiting the reach of FIRREA, FDIC v. Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LCC et al. (No. 12CV4000, Mar. 24, 2015), a suit over allegedly rotten residential mortgage-backed securities.

The limitation derives from a pretty technical Supreme Court opinion, CTS Corp. v. Waldburger. In CTS, the Supreme Court held that statutes of repose were not preempted by a statute that has identical language as the FDIC Extender Provision found in FIRREA and at issue in FDIC v. Bear Stearns.

I warned you that this is technical, so here is what is at issue:

Claims brought under Section 11 of the 1933 Act are subject to the two-pronged timing provision of Section 13 of that Act, which is codified as 15 U.S.C. § 77m. The first prong of Section 13 is a statute of limitations, which provides that Section 11 claims must be brought within one year of “the discovery of the untrue statement or the omission, or after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.” 15 U.S.C.S. § 77m (LexisNexis 2012). The statute of limitations may be tolled based on equitable considerations, but not beyond three years from the date of the relevant offering, at which point a plaintiff’s claim is extinguished by Section 13’s second prong – a statute of repose – which provides that “[i]n no event shall any such action be brought . . . more than three years after the security was bona fide offered to the public.” Id.

The FDIC asserts that its claims are timely, notwithstanding the three-year Section 13 statute of repose, because the statute of repose is preempted by the FDIC Extender Provision . . .. (6)

Relying on CTS Corp. v. Wadburger, the Judge Swain concludes that “the FDIC Extender Provision does not preempt the statute of repose set forth in Section 13 of the 1933 Act.” (14-15)

The reasoning in FDIC v. Bear Stearns does not apply to all FIRREA claims, but it would apply to some meaningful subset of them. One of the most powerful things about FIRREA is its very long statute of limitations. If other courts follow FDIC v. Stearns, it could have a meaningful impact on the reach of FIRREA.

Monday’s Adjudication Roundup

Posted on by
  • Shareholders of Deutsche Bank petitioned for cert to the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the standard for a claim for pleading a fraudulent claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 following the Second Circuit tossing their suit in July 2014.
  • 10th Circuit revives National Credit Union Administration’s $550 million suit against Barclays for misrepresentation of the quality of over $555 million in RMBS.
  • First wave of Hurricane Sandy cases settle with FEMA and insurers over the improper cutting of the homeowners’ payouts following the storm.

Offering Opinions About MBS Exposure

Posted on by

The Tenth Circuit issued an opinion in MHC Mutual Conversion Fund, L.P. v. Sandler O’Neill & Partners, L.P. et al. (No. 13-1016 Aug. 1, 2014). The case concerns a 2009 stock offering by Bancorp. Bancorp was significantly exposed to mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and said as much in its securities filings. It also predicted that the market for MBS would rebound soon.

The highly readable opinion asks,

When does section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 impose liability on issuers who offer opinions about future events? The statute prohibits companies from making statements that are false or misleading. Establishing that an opinion about the future failed to pan out in the end may go some way to meeting that standard but it doesn’t go all the way. After all, few of us would label a deeply studied, carefully expressed, and earnestly held opinion about the future as false or misleading at the time it’s made simply because later events proved it wrong. To establish liability for an opinion about the future more is required. But what? Answering that question is the challenge posed by this case.

The opinion provides a clear overview of what differentiates opinion from fact in securities offering statements. The Court does this by carefully walking through three theories of opinion liability under section 11:

  1. “no one should depend on the puffery of salesmen . . . especially when the salesman’s offering a guess about the future” (5-6)
  2. “an opinion can qualify as a factual claim by the speaker regarding his current state of mind.” (7)
  3. “some subset of opinions about future events contain within them an implicit factual warranty that they rest on an objectively reasonable basis” (13)

In this case, the Court found that the plaintiffs could not establish liability under any theory.

The opinion provides a nice, clean framework for understanding section 11 liability claims.  This framework should apply to offering statements for MBS that set forth opinions about future events as well as those for any other type of security that does the same.