United States: Second Circuit Grafts "Predominance" Test On To Morrison, Precluding Claims Founded On Domestic Securities Transactions Manipulated By Foreign Conduct

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Limited, 561 U.S. 247 (2010), which set forth a bright-line test for determining when a particular case impermissibly relied on an extraterritorial application of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Court held that Section 10(b) applies only if the claim is based on the "purchase or sale of a security listed on a domestic exchange," or if the claim is based "on a domestic purchase or sale of another security." Morrison, 561 U.S. at 267. The Morrison decision forced institutional investors with losses on securities transactions on foreign exchanges to seek remedies in foreign jurisdictions based on foreign law, even if much of the fraudulent conduct occurred in the United States or was directed at United States investors.1

In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court overruled the Second Circuit's standard for determining whether a case involved the improper extraterritorial application of federal securities laws. Prior to Morrison, the Second Circuit had established a conduct-and-effects test: courts were to evaluate whether the allegations demonstrated that the wrongful conduct upon which the claim is based occurred in the United States, and whether the effects of the conduct (though occurring abroad) were substantial on the United States or United States citizens. Id. at 257-58. The Supreme Court eschewed the conducts-and-effects test for a transactional test, which requires that the securities transaction at issue take place in the United States for Section 10(b) to apply.

On August 15, 2014 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was confronted with a case where the securities transaction undoubtedly took place in the United States. In addition, the securities transaction was between two parties residing in the United States. Yet, the court held that the case was an improper attempt by the plaintiffs to apply Section 10(b) extraterritorially because, despite the domestic transaction, the profit or loss on the security was tied to the share price of a company listed on a foreign exchange and foreign aspects of the claim otherwise "predominated."

The Second Circuit thus effectively revived the conduct portion of its earlier test, but applied it in reverse—despite a domestic transaction, there can be no Section 10(b) claim if the underlying conduct and securities tied to the domestic transaction are both foreign.

This case, Parkcentral Global Hub Limited, et al. v. Porsche Automobil Holdings SE, et al, No. 11-397-CV, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 3973877 (2d Cir. August 15, 2014), will be important to other courts around the country in applying Morrison to different factual scenarios.

Porsche's Facts: Investors Made Domestic Purchases of Derivative Contracts Tied to Foreign Stock.

In the Porsche case, the plaintiffs were various investors that purchased securities-based swap agreements tied to the stock of Volkswagen AG ("VW"), a German car manufacturer. VW's stock was listed on various European stock exchanges, but was not listed on any United States exchanges. The investors used the swap agreements to place bets that the price of VW's stock would decline, similar to shorting the stock directly. Id. at *1-2.

Importantly, however, the securities-based swap agreements were separate and distinct securities from the underlying VW stock. The swaps were private contracts between two parties in which they "agree[d] to exchange cash flows that depend on the price of a reference security, here the VW shares." Id. at *3. The investors entered into the swap agreements in the United States, and their counter-parties were banks based in the United States. Id. at *6. The swap agreements contained New York choice-of-law provisions and forum selection clauses designating New York federal and state courts as the forum in which legal disputes would be resolved. Id.

The investors alleged that they were deceived into taking their positions in the swap contracts tied to VW's stock by Porsche Automobil Holding SE ("Porsche"), another European car manufacturer. Porsche allegedly made fraudulent statements in early 2008 denying that the company had any interest in acquiring VW. Id. at *1-2. In addition, the investors alleged that Porsche deceptively manipulated the market in VW shares through a complex strategy of using put and call options to hide how the company was surreptitiously acquiring a large block of shares in VW at the same time it was denying any interest in acquiring the company. Then, in October 2008, Porsche announced that it did intend to acquire VW. VW's shares rose significantly because of this news and subsequent "short squeeze" resulting from Porsche's options trading. Consequently, the investors that purchased securities-based swaps betting on a decline in VW's share price incurred significant losses. Id. at *4-5.

Porsche's alleged deceptive conduct occurred primarily in Germany, although some of the statements were made, or at a minimum available, in the United States. Id. at *7. Like VW, Porsche stock was also traded on European exchanges, rather than on exchanges in the United States. The Porsche executives named as defendants resided in Germany. Neither VW nor Porsche had any role in structuring or participating in the securities-based swaps. Id. at *1, *3-4.

The swaps investors sued Porsche and several of its executives in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that they violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements and otherwise deceiving investors in connection with the value of VW's shares. The district court dismissed the case, and the investors appealed.

Second Circuit Says Morrison Transactional Test Should Not Be Read Too Literally.

The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the investors' claims against Porsche, concluding that allowing the claims to go forward would be an improper extraterritorial application of Section 10(b) under Morrison.

In reaching this conclusion, the court acknowledged that, on its face, the complaint seemed to satisfy the "domestic transaction" test set forth in Morrison and the Second Circuit's Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Ficeto, 677 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2012) decision applying Morrison. In Ficeto, the court held that a transaction qualifies as a domestic purchase or sale where the purchaser of the security "incurred irrevocable liability within the United States to take and pay for a security, or that the seller incurred irrevocable liability within the United States to deliver a security." Id. at 68.

But the court also cautioned that the Morrison transaction test cannot be read too literally. Unlike legislatures, which pass general laws for prospective application, courts establish rules retrospectively based on the facts and circumstances of the dispute before it. Thus, it stated that courts should "proceed cautiously in applying teachings the Morrison Court developed in a case involving conventional purchases and sales of stock to derivative securities, like securities-based swap agreements, that vest parties with rights to payments based on changes in the value of a stock." Porsche, 2014 WL 3973877 at *13.

Where Foreign Fraudulent Conduct Predominates, Domestic Transactions Insufficient to Invoke Section 10(b).

Then the court grafted on to Morrison's transactional test a "predominance" inquiry—if the claims are based so predominantly on foreign conduct, foreign defendants and the share price movement of a stock traded exclusively on a foreign exchange, the fact of a domestic transaction is insufficient to invoke Section 10(b). Id. at 43-45. The court reasoned that although a domestic transaction in a security is a necessary element, it is not a sufficient element to invoke Section 10(b). Id. at *14. The court wrote:

If the domestic execution of the plaintiffs' agreements could alone suffice to invoke § 10(b) liability with respect to the defendants' alleged conduct in this case, then it would subject to U.S. securities laws conduct that occurred in a foreign country, concerning securities in a foreign company, traded entirely on foreign exchanges, in the absence of any congressional provision addressing the incompatibility of U.S. and foreign law nearly certain to arise. That is a result Morrison plainly did not contemplate and that the Court's reasoning does not, we think, permit.

Id. at *15. Absent the predominance inquiry, the court reasoned that finding a domestic transaction sufficient would ignore the Morrison court's concern about applying Section 10(b) in a way that would displace the securities laws and regulations of other countries which have primary responsibility for companies listed on foreign exchanges. Id.

Accordingly, the court held "we think that the relevant actions in this case are so predominantly German as to compel the conclusion that the complaints fail to invoke § 10(b) in a manner consistent with the presumption against extraterritoriality." Id.

Porsche Decision Continues Trend Limiting Reach of Securities Laws.

With the Porsche decision, courthouse doors in the United States (at least within the Second Circuit) are closed to purchasers of domestic derivatives contracts that have been manipulated by foreign fraudulent conduct. Plaintiffs will not be able to invoke Section 10(b), even where the securities transactions undoubtedly took placed in the United States, if the defendants can demonstrate that foreign issues and conduct predominate such that permitting Section 10(b) liability could frustrate or conflict with the regulation of foreign issuers by countries in which they are listed. The Porsche case further amplifies the trend in United States courts to narrow the territorial coverage of the federal securities laws, forcing investors to litigate in state or foreign courts.

Footnotes

1.Under certain circumstances, some domestic investors have had success asserting claimsin federal court making allegations of violations of state law or foreign law where the conduct focused on or emanated from the United States. See In re BP p.l.c. Sec. Litig. (Alameda Cty. Emp. Ret. Assoc., et al. v. BP p.l.c., et al.), MDL No. 10-md-2185, Civ. Act. No. 12-CV-12561 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2013), decision available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11957899401482643885&q=in+re+bp+plc+alameda&hl=en&as_sdt=4,369 .

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions