August 9, 2022

Volume XII, Number 221

Advertisement
Advertisement

August 08, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Five Advantages to Section 18 of the Securities Act – A New Weapon for Institutions

Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, while seldom used in the past, has been increasingly used by institutional investors in suits against banks and other entities.  The advantages of Section 18 are as follows:

  1. Plaintiff need not allege scienter.

  2. Unlike Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, plaintiffs need not allege privity.  Section 18 attributes liability to “[a]ny person who shall make or cause to be made” a material misstatement.

  3. Although a plaintiff must allege “eyeball reliance” on the SEC filings covered by the statute, this is not a difficult task for an institutional investor. Indeed, the ways in which the specific statements are misleading or fail to state material facts can be persuasively enunciated by investment professionals who are, in effect, experts.  The allegations can present defense counsel with unique arguments they had not anticipated and give the case momentum.  Accordingly, the investor can present to the court a compelling case of how someone was misled by the disclosures, rather than a case based on anonymous reliance pursuant to the “fraud-on-the-market” doctrine.

  4. There is a right to a jury trial.

  5. There is some authority that investment advisors can sue on behalf of clients.

Section 18 does, of course, have some limitations.  The security must be publicly traded.  The document must be filed “pursuant to the Exchange Act or any rule or regulation thereunder on in any undertaking contained in a registration statement.”  The price must be “affected” by the statement.  The “damages” must be “caused” by the reliance.  The limitations or repose period appears to be one and three years, respectively, as with the Section 13 of the Securities Act. Some courts have required plaintiffs to plead facts creating a strong inference of negligence.

In summary, Section 18 may be able to reach defendants that Section 12(a)(2) cannot and its “eyeball reliance” requirements may actually enhance the merits of an institutional plantiffs’ case.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume V, Number 272
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Peter Saparoff Securities Attorney Mintz Law Firm
Member

Peter is an experienced securities litigator both on the plaintiff and defense side. He has defended over 100 cases and investigations. In addition, he chairs the Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery practice which has recovered nearly $7 billion for thousands of mutual funds and other institutional clients. The practice evaluates virtually every securities investor settlement in the world. The practice not only files claims for clients but also assists them in opting out and filing separate cases, both in the US and in international jurisdictions.

Peter is one of the nation...

617-348-1725
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement