New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Pleading Loss Causation — Does Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) or 9(b) Apply? Circuit Split

Download PDF

In re Fairway Grp. Holding Corp. Secs. Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5999 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2015):

Loss causation is an essential element of a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim, but the pleading requirement is not meant to impose a great burden on plaintiffs. See Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346-47, 125 S. Ct. 1627, 1633-35 (2005). To establish loss causation in a case involving allegations of material misrepresentations and omissions, "a plaintiff must allege . . . that the subject of the fraudulent statement or omission was the cause of the actual loss suffered." Suez Equity Investors, L.P. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, 250 F.3d 87, 95 (2d Cir. 2001); accord, e.g., Lentell v. Merril Lynch & Co., 396 F.3d 161, 173 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 546 U.S. 935, 126 S. Ct. 421 (2005); see also, e.g., Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. at 344-45, 125 S. Ct. at 1633-34; ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 107 (2d Cir. 2007); Emergent Capital Inv. Mgmt., LLC v. Stonepath Grp., Inc., 343 F.3d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 2003).17 It is not enough for a plaintiff to merely allege that, at the time of plaintiff's purchase of a security, the price of that security was artificially inflated as a result of a defendant's misrepresentation. Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. at 344-45, 125 S. Ct. at 1633-34; Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 396 F.3d at 174; Emergent Capital Inv. Mgmt., LLC v. Stonepath Group, Inc., 343 F.3d at 198; In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 330113 at *9.18 Instead, a plaintiff "may do one of two things to sufficiently allege loss causation. 'Where the alleged misstatement conceals a condition or event which then occurs and causes the plaintiff's loss,' a plaintiff may plead [*43]  that it is 'the materialization of the undisclosed condition or event that causes the loss.' Alternatively, a plaintiff may identify particular 'disclosing event[s]' that reveal the false information, and tie dissipation of artificial price inflation to those events." Catton v. Def. Tech. Sys., Inc., 05 Civ. 6954, 2006 WL 27470 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2006) (quoting In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 399 F. Supp. 2d 298, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)).19 Allegations of loss causation are evaluated under the notice pleading standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8, and a short plain statement that provides defendants with notice of the loss and its causal connection to the alleged misconduct is sufficient. Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. at 346, 125 S. Ct. at 1633; see also, e.g., Van Dongen v. CNinsure Inc., 951 F. Supp. 2d 457, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); Freudenberg v. E*Trade Fin. Corp., 712 F. Supp. 2d at 202.20

17   See also, e.g., Prime Mover Capital Partners L.P. v. Elixir Gaming Technologies, Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d 673, 684-85 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd, 548 F. App'x 16 (2d Cir. 2013); Freudenberg v. E*Trade Fin. Corp., 712 F. Supp. 2d 171, 202 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 02 Civ. 3013, 2006 WL 330113 at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2006), report & rec. adopted, 2006 WL 568225 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2006) (Kaplan, D.J.).

18   "[I]f the loss was caused by an intervening event, like a general fall in the price of Internet stocks, the chain of causation will not have been established." Emergent Capital Inv. Mgmt., LLC v. Stonepath Group, Inc., 343 F.3d at 197; accord, e.g., Lentell v. Merril Lynch & Co., 396 F.3d at 174; see also, e.g., Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. at 342-43, 125 S. Ct. at 1631-32; In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 330113 at *9 n.11.

19   Accord, e.g., Freudenberg v. E*Trade Fin. Corp., 712 F. Supp. 2d at 202 ("A risk allegedly concealed by defendants which materialized and arguably caused the decline in shareholder value suffices."); In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Sec. Litig., 503 F. Supp. 2d 666, 677 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); In re NTL Inc. Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 330113 at *9 & n.12; In re GeoPharma, Inc. Sec. Litig., 399 F. Supp. 2d 432, 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Teamsters Local 445 Freight Div. Pension Fund v. Bombardier Inc., 05 Civ. 1898, 2005 WL 2148919 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2005); see, e.g., In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 375 F. Supp. 2d 278, 305-06 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (Kaplan, D.J.).

20   In Acticon AG v. China N.E. Petroleum Holdings Ltd., 692 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2012), the Second Circuit identified (but did not decide) a circuit split regarding whether [*44]  Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) or 9(b) applies to pleading loss causation. Decisions in this District subsequent to Acticon still have applied the "short plain" statement standard to loss causation. See, e.g., In re Magnum Hunter Res. Corp. Sec. Litig., 13 Civ. 2668, 2014 WL 2840152 at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2014)

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice