Two men share securities regulation news

Breaking news and expert analysis on legal and compliance issues

[Back To Home][Back To Archives]

From Securities Regulation Daily, September 10, 2013

Delaware Supreme Court reaffirms narrow fraud exception to continuous ownership rule for derivative actions

By Jim Hamilton, J.D., LL.M.

Answering a question from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled en banc that shareholders cannot maintain a derivative action under the fraud exception to Delaware’s continuous ownership rule after a merger that divests them of their ownership interest in the corporation on whose behalf they sue by alleging that the merger at issue was necessitated by, and is inseparable from, the alleged fraud that is the subject of their derivative claims. At the same time, the Court, in an opinion by Justice Holland, reaffirmed the continuous ownership rule, and the limited fraud exception to that rule, recognized by its 1984 holding in Lewis v. Anderson. (Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., September 10, 2013, Holland, J.)

Derivative action. The derivative action was brought in federal court by five institutional investors asserting state and federal derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and securities law violations. While the suit was pending in federal district court, the company merged into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation in a stock-for-stock transaction that divested the plaintiffs of their shares.

Continuous ownership rule. In Anderson, the Court held that for a shareholder to have standing to maintain a derivative action, the plaintiff must not only be a stockholder at the time of the alleged wrong and at the time of commencement of suit but must also maintain shareholder status throughout the litigation. These two conditions precedent to initiating and maintaining a derivative action are referred to as the contemporaneous ownership and the continuous ownership requirements. The contemporaneous ownership requirement is imposed by statute, noted the Court, while the continuous ownership requirement is a matter of common law. But the Court also recognized a narrow exception to the loss-of-standing rule when the merger itself is the subject of a claim of fraud being perpetrated merely to deprive shareholders of their standing to bring or maintain a derivative action.

Fraud exception. The Court emphasized that Lewis v. Anderson is settled Delaware law and has been consistently followed since 1984. The Court said that its 2010 decision in Arkansas Teacher Retirement Systems v. Caiafa, which arose from the same underlying facts and involved the parties to this appeal, did not change the Lewis v. Anderson equation.

Moreover, in Arkansas Teacher, the Court unequivocally stated that the company’s merger with BofA had extinguished the plaintiffs’ standing to pursue derivative claims. After that ruling, the Court discussed, in dictum, certain direct claims that the plaintiffs could have brought, but did not. But the Court emphasized here that that dictum did not overrule sub silentio more than twenty-five years of precedent that consistently held that the fraud exception applies only where the sole purpose of a merger is to extinguish shareholders’ derivative standing.

The case is No. 14, 2013.

Attorneys: Stuart M. Grant, Esquire (argued), Michael J. Barry, Esquire and Diane Zilka, Esquire, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, and Blair A. Nicholas, Esquire and Niki L. Mendoza, Esquire, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, San Diego, California, and Lester L. Levy, Esquire, Carl L. Stine, Esquire, Robert Plosky, Esquire, Wolf Popper LLP, New York, New York, for appellants, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, Central Laborers Pension Fund and Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi.

Thomas A. Beck, Esquire, Richard P. Rollo, Esquire, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, and Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esquire (argued), Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, Daniel P. Roeser, Esquire, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, New York, and Jason L. Krajcer, and Teodora E. Manolova, Esquire, Goodwin Procter LLP, Los Angeles, California, for appellee, Countrywide Financial Corporation

Companies: Arkansas Teacher Retirement System.; Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado.; Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System.; Central Laborers Pension Fund and Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi.

TopStory: CorporateGovernance DelawareNews

Securities Regulation Daily

Introducing Wolters Kluwer Securities Regulation Daily — a daily reporting service created by attorneys, for attorneys — providing same-day coverage of breaking news, court decisions, legislation, and regulatory activity.


A complete daily report of the news that affects your world

  • View full summaries of federal and state court decisions.
  • Access full text of legislative and regulatory developments.
  • Customize your daily email by topic and/or jurisdiction.
  • Search archives for stories of interest.

Not just news — the right news

  • Get expert analysis written by subject matter specialists—created by attorneys for attorneys.
  • Track law firms and organizations in the headlines with our new “Who’s in the News” feature.
  • Promote your firm with our new reprint policy.

24/7 access for a 24/7 world

  • Forward information with special copyright permissions, encouraging collaboration between counsel and colleagues.
  • Save time with mobile apps for your BlackBerry, iPhone, iPad, Android, or Kindle.
  • Access all links from any mobile device without being prompted for user name and password.