October 20, 2021

Volume XI, Number 293

Advertisement
Advertisement

October 20, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 19, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 18, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Southern District of New York Judge Applies Morrison to Dismiss Federal Securities Claims Brought by U.S. Investors Against the Royal Bank of Scotland

Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank, Ltd., No. 08–1191, 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (June 24, 2010), Judge Deborah Batts of the Southern District of New York dismissed Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 subprime-related securities claims asserted by a class of U.S. investors against the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and several underwriters relating to the purchase of ordinary (common) RBS shares listed on foreign exchanges.  In re Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC Sec. Litig., 09-Civ-00300, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3974 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2011).  In In re Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC Sec. Litig., plaintiffs alleged that RBS had fraudulently misled them regarding the extent of RBS’s substantial holdings in subprime and other mortgage-backed securities.  Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiffs resided in the United States and decided to purchase foreign shares while in the United States, Judge Batts concluded that Morrison mandated the dismissal of plaintiffs’ securities claims where the securities at issue were not listed on U.S. domestic exchanges.

The dismissal in In re Royal Bank of Scotland is only the latest decision that has applied Morrison to reject claims asserted by purchasers of foreign securities.  In Morrison, a decision issued in June 2010, the Supreme Court held that federal securities fraud laws do not apply to investment deals that take place outside the United States, even if such investments have an impact on the United States.  The Supreme Court narrowed years of federal jurisprudence on the extraterritorial application of securities fraud laws, noting that Section 10(b) applies only to “transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges, and domestic transactions in other securities.”  Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2884.  It is critical to note that Morrison applies only to private securities actions.  The Dodd-Frank Act, signed into law on July 21, 2010, overruled Morrison in part by expanding federal jurisdiction to give extraterritorial effect to U.S. securities laws in proceedings brought by the Securities Exchange Commission or Department of Justice.

In In re Royal Bank of Scotland, RBS moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims relating to the investors’ purchase of ordinary shares.  RBS contended that the amended complaint should have been dismissed because the securities at issue were not purchased or sold in the United States or on an American stock exchange, as required by Morrison.  In contrast, plaintiffs argued that, because RBS listed American Depositary Shares (ADS) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the court had jurisdiction under Section 10(b) even if the securities at issue in the litigation were listed on foreign exchanges.

The Southern District of New York rejected plaintiffs’ “listing theory,” noting that the determining factor in applying Section 10(b) would be the “true territorial location where the purchase or sale was executed,” rather than the fact that RBS listed any stock on a U.S. market.  In re Royal Bank of Scotland, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3974 at *18.  The court specifically stated:  “The idea that a foreign company is subject to a U.S. securities law everywhere it conducts foreign transactions merely because it has ‘listed’ some securities in the United States is simply contrary to the spirit of Morrison.”  Id. at *17–18.

Judge Batts likewise rejected plaintiffs’ contention that both their U.S. residences and their U.S.-based decisions to invest in foreign shares provided a sufficient nexus for their securities claims.  In the court’s view, plaintiffs’ suggested fact-intensive approach—“that it is enough to allege that plaintiffs are U.S. residents who were in the country when they decided to buy RBS shares—is exactly the type of analysis that Morrison seeks to prevent.”  Id. at *20.

The dismissal of federal securities claims in In re Royal Bank of Scotland suggests that future courts applying Morrison will likely adhere to a narrow view of the extraterritorial reach of Section 10(b).  Indeed, both investors in foreign securities and foreign companies with U.S. investors should familiarize themselves with Morrison and continue to monitor lower courts’ application of the Supreme Court decision in the coming months.

© 2021 Vedder PriceNational Law Review, Volume I, Number 98
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Thomas P. Cimino, Vedder Price Law Firm, Litigation Attorney
Shareholder

Thomas P. Cimino, Jr. joined Vedder Price P.C. in 1996 as a shareholder and is a member of the firm’s Litigation Practice Area. He has broad experience in complex commercial litigation, including securities fraud class actions, shareholder disputes, patent, trademark and copyright infringement and bankruptcy litigation.  Mr. Cimino has appeared in both state and federal trial and appellate courts throughout the United States. He also has represented clients in proceedings before the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

312-609-7784
Junaid A. Zubairi Vedder Price Law Firm  Government  Investigations Attorney
Shareholder

Junaid A. Zubairi focuses his practice on government investigations, investment services and regulatory compliance matters.  His practice includes representing companies and individuals in SEC investigations, conducting internal investigations, counseling clients during regulatory examinations, and providing general compliance and remediation counseling.  Mr. Zubairi has extensive experience representing investment advisers, broker-dealers, corporations and officers and directors during government investigations and regulatory proceedings.

Mr. Zubairi regularly practices before the...

312-609-7720
William Thorsness, Corporate Litigator, Vedder Price legal practice
Shareholder

William W. Thorsness joined Vedder Price as an associate in the Litigation Practice Area. In this capacity, Mr. Thorsness represents and counsels corporations and individuals on all litigation concerns, including contract, commercial and tort matters. In 2007, Mr. Thorsness also became a member of Vedder Price’s Bankruptcy Group. As an associate in Vedder Price’s Bankruptcy Group, Mr. Thorsness focuses his practice on corporate bankruptcy, reorganization and workouts.

312-609-7595
Rachel T. Copenhaver, Vedder Price Law Firm, Litigation Attorney
Shareholder

Rachel T. Copenhaver joined Vedder Price P.C. as an associate in the Commercial Litigation Practice Area.  She counsels and represents clients on a wide variety of business and commercial disputes, including contract, commercial and tort litigation.

312-609-7514
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement