Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendants entered a plea of guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, based on trading on material, nonpublic information and tipping others. The SEC instituted a civil enforcement action, alleging that defendants violated section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 by engaging in insider trading. The district court imposed civil penalties under section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(3): a penalty of $600,000 on one defendant for five violations and a penalty of $120,000 on another for two tips The Second Circuit vacated in part, holding that civil monetary penalties for insider trading are not available under section 21(d)(3). The section refers to penalties for violations, "other than by committing a violation subject to a penalty pursuant to section 78u-1;" the referenced section states that penalties shall not exceed three times profit gained or loss avoided. The court held that 21(d)(3) is intended to deal with violations other than insider trading. Although the defendants did not make a profit or avoid a loss and were not penalized under 78u-1, they committed insider trading and are "subject to" penalty even if the penalty was not assessed.

Defendant appealed from two judgments of conviction related to his involvement in "pump and dump" stock schemes. At issue was whether the first judgment of conviction, entered upon a jury verdict, should be overturned, either because the evidence was insufficient to permit a jury to find a fiduciary duty, or because the jury was improperly instructed about how to determine the existence of a fiduciary duty. Also at issue was whether the second judgment of conviction should be overturned because defendant's guilty plea, entered after his conviction in the first trial, was premised on the outcome of that trial. The court held that, upon reviewing the jury instructions for plain error and taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the jury was entitled to find that the brokers in this case had a duty to disclose their exorbitant commissions, just as they had a duty to refrain from making affirmative misrepresentations regarding the size of their commissions, and thus, the district court properly instructed the jury on the elements of that duty. The court also held that, because it found no principled basis on which to distinguish this case from United States v. Szur, the court concluded that there was no error in the charge, and affirmed defendant's first conviction. Therefore, the court's conclusion necessarily defeated defendant's argument challenging his subsequent guilty plea and the second judgment of conviction was also affirmed.

Petitioner filed an arbitration claim against respondent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") raising federal claims of securities fraud under section 10(b)(5) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ("SEC"), 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., and SEC Rule 10b-5, as well as state-law claims. When respondent lost the FINRA arbitration, respondent appealed the arbitration order asserting various improprieties and asked the district court, and now this court, to undo the award. The court upheld confirmation of the award in full after giving careful attention to respondent's arguments and found them to be without merit. The court did hold, however, that the district court's judgment should credit respondent for approximately $75 million that petitioner received in exchange for selling some of the failed auction rate securities at issue and should have reduced respondent's liability for interest accordingly. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment on that point and remanded for modification in light of the partial satisfaction of the award. The court rejected, however, respondent's attempt to alter the award's scheme for distributing interest earned on the securities portfolio.

Plaintiffs appealed from judgments dismissing their class-action complaints seeking to hold defendants (collectively, "Rating Agencies") liable as underwriters or control persons for misstatements or omissions in securities offering documents in violation of sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act"), 15 U.S.C. 77k(a)(5), 77o(a). At issue was whether the Rating Agencies were "underwriters" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(11) because they helped structure securities transactions to achieve desired ratings. Also at issue was whether the Rating Agencies were "control persons" because of their alleged provision of advice and direction to primary violators regarding transaction structures under section 77o(a) of the 1933 Act. The court held that plaintiffs' section 11 claims that the Rating Agencies were "underwriters" was properly dismissed because the Rating Agencies' alleged structuring or creation of securities was insufficient to demonstrate their involvement in the requisite distributional activities. The court also held that plaintiffs' "control person" claims under section 77o(a) were properly dismissed because the Rating Agencies' provision of advice and guidance regarding transaction structures was insufficient to permit an inference that they had the power to direct the management or policies of alleged primary violators of section 11. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying implicitly plaintiffs' cursory requests for leave to amend.

Purchasers of Parmalat Capital Finance Limited ("Parmalat") debt and equity securities filed class action lawsuits against Parmalat and others for securities fraud ("Appellants"). At issue was whether the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1334(b) and whether the district court properly declined to abstain from exercising that jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(2). The court held that the district court properly exercised removal jurisdiction where the estate at issue in a 11 U.S.C. 304 proceeding, wherever located, could conceivably be affected by the state law actions. The court also held that the district court erred in determining that appellants failed to file motions for abstention where the district court should have focused on the timely administration of the estate, not the section 304 proceeding.