At a recent asbestos litigation conference, one of the speakers reminded everyone of the old maxim to " be careful what you wish for" in litigation. In that vein, consider the current US legislative battles about the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard that makes it materially harder for plaintiff’s to allege a complain that withstands a motion to dismiss. In this dawning age of global litigation, choice of venue and law issues are increasingly important due to global financial markets. Within that realm, consider the importance of the pleading standards as applied to, for example, the fact pattern set out in the text below from this interesting article about an investigation into an investigation by the SEC, with both investigations related to a sudden plunge in the price of a biotech stock.
Suppose the report referred to below is made public, with or without full facts being disclosed in the report . Under the new Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards in the US, would incorporation of the report be enough for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss ? If not, are US firms going to find themselves facing class actions in Europe, Australia or other venues where pleaidng standards are now or may be less demanding than the Iqbal/Twombly standard ? Will suits seek out countries where class action laws exits and litigation funding is far more accepted than it is in the US ? If that happens to one degree or another, will US defendants be more or less happy than they were under the old Conley v. Gibson pleading standard ?
I’m not sure how this all turns out. But I am starting to wonder if the Iqbal/Twombly standard will end up being one of those wishes that it is later regretted by US industry. In short, it seems to me the wish for the higher pleading standard could end as a wish that ultimately accelerates litigating tort claims outside the US, . Outside the US, defendants certainly will have work to do to try to obtain the benefit of the Daubert standard so much loved by defendants.
Dendreon stock mauling probed by regulators
By Matthew Goldstein
NEW YORK (Reuters) – A lightening fast sell-off of shares of biotech company Dendreon <DNDN.O> last April is drawing scrutiny from U.S. securities regulators and the independent monitor assigned to keep tabs on those regulators, said people familiar with the matter.
They said an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into the still unexplained trading event, during which shares of Dendreon plunged more than 69 percent in 70 seconds, is ongoing.
It is not clear if the SEC inquiry into the incident, which some academics and investors have blamed on a combination of short-sellers and high-frequency trading programs, will lead to an enforcement action, said these same sources.
SEC spokesman John Nester declined to comment.
The SEC investigation partially overlapped with an inquiry conducted last summer by SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz to determine whether securities regulators were paying enough attention to the matter.
In December, Kotz submitted a confidential report on the results of his inquiry to SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami, the sources said.
The SEC is considering a Freedom of Information request from Reuters to release the inspector general’s report. But a person familiar with the situation said regulators will likely deny the request on the grounds that the report discusses an ongoing probe.
The SEC cited a similar reason for rejecting an earlier FOIA request from Reuters, seeking information about any complaints filed by investors over the April 28 incident.
It is unusual for the SEC’s inspector general to conduct an inquiry into the agency’s handling of an ongoing investigation. Kotz’s office initiated the investigation at the request of an investor and Sen. Charles Grassley, according to sources and the inspector general’s semiannual
Grassley spokeswoman Beth Levine said his office had not received a copy of Kotz’s completed report.
The Iowa Republican has had a history of taking issue with the pace of SEC investigations and asking Kotz’s office to review the agency’s handling of enforcement matters.
A Dendreon spokeswoman declined to comment on the investigations.
Last April, the $16 plunge in shares of the Seattle-based biotech generated a good deal of head-scratching on Wall Street. That’s because in little over a minute, the equivalent of an entire day’s worth of trading activity in Dendreon shares took place before Nasdaq Stock Market officials halted the stock.
Stock market officials initially suspected the rapid-fire selling was sparked by a so-called fat finger trade, or a broker putting in an erroneous order to sell too many shares. But Nasdaq officials, without issuing any comment, did not void any of the trades.
The April 28 plunge of Dendreon shares coincided with speculation in the market that the company was going to report poor test results that afternoon for its prostate cancer drug Provenge. In fact, the opposite occurred, and the company reported generally positive test results.
Once trading was allowed to resume, the stock quickly regained all of its losses. But the freak sell-off resulted in losses for retail investors who had so-called stop-loss orders with their brokers to sell shares at a predetermined price.
When a stock plunges quickly, it can trigger a stop-loss order, a sale at a previously designated price intended to limit losses. A stop-loss order can cause an investor’s shares to be sold at price lower than the one he wanted.
Reuters reported in October that many investors with stop-loss orders lost money in the sell-off and some complained to regulators and asked them to look into the matter.
There have been numerous theories for the unusual trading event.
Some investors have blamed the sell-off on a so-called bear raid by short-sellers looking to profit from a precipitous decline in a stock. Others attribute the ferociousness of the selling to computer-driven high-frequency trading programs that scan the markets looking to take advantage of trading trends.
James Angel, a professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, previously told Reuters that high-frequency trading programs may have exacerbated the plunge when the algorithms these trading firms use all glommed onto the same trend.
(Reporting by Matthew Goldstein; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)