Influential appeals court signals interest in revisiting securities class certification test
By Alison Frankel
Aug 29 (Reuters) -The federal appellate court that oversees the lionโs share of U.S. investor class actions signaled on Wednesday that it may not be done tinkering with its test for shareholders trying to band together to pursue fraud claims.
The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order calling for oral arguments on a petition for mid-case review by shareholders of mining company Kirkland Lake Gold (now a subsidiary of Agnico Eagle Mines AEM.TO). The shareholders contend that a Manhattan trial judge erred last March when he refused to certify a class to proceed with claims that Kirkland Lakeโs former CEO misled investors about the companyโs reluctance to grow through acquiring smaller mining operators.
It's rare for appellate courts to grant petitions for mid-case, or interlocutory appeal, as Kirkland Lake pointed out in its brief opposing shareholdersโ petition. But interlocutory appeals have been crucial in the development of securities class action precedent.
As you probably recall, the U.S. Supreme Court used an interlocutory appeal by investment bank Goldman Sachs to refine some of the rules for shareholder class certification in 2021. The 2nd Circuit subsequently offered its initial interpretation of the Supreme Court's Goldman Sachs test in a post-remand interlocutory appeal by the bank in 2023.
Now shareholders are trying to turn the tables, hoping to use an interlocutory appeal to blunt the impact of the 2nd Circuitโs 2023 Goldman ruling, in which the 2nd Circuit instructed trial judges to use heightened scrutiny when evaluating the price impact of "generic" misstatements that allegedly allowed the company to maintain an inflated share price.
Under the appellate court's "mismatch" theory, when a company's share price falls in response to a specific event, judges should be wary of shareholder claims that the stock drop reflects the impact of anodyne statements that, in hindsight, were allegedly false.
To be clear: The 2nd Circuit has not yet granted the petition by Kirkland Lake shareholders. Wednesdayโs order instead calls for argument by their shareholders' appellate lawyers from Goldstein, Russell & Woofter and Kirkland Lakeโs lawyers from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison on whether the 2nd Circuit should hear the case. That argument is scheduled for Sept. 10.
But the mere call for oral argument on the petition for interlocutory appeal suggests that shareholders have at least piqued the interest of the 2nd Circuit, since circuit courts hardly ever hear oral arguments on such petitions.
Kirkland Lake investors allege that the companyโs former CEO made three false statements about Kirkland Lakeโs willingness to grow through acquiring other mining businesses. In one 2018 statement, the CEO described a demanding โminimum standardโ Kirkland Lake maintained for potential merger partners. And in two statements in 2019, the CEO emphasized Kirkland Lakeโs intention to grow organically rather than through acquisitions.
Shareholders contend that Kirkland Lakeโs subsequent 2019 acquisition of a โpoorly performingโ company proved the falsity of the CEO's three statements. They assert that the nearly 18% stock drop when Kirkland Lake announced the 2019 deal showed the companyโs share price had been artificially inflated by the CEOโs reassurances.
U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken of Manhattan rejected those arguments in a March 29 decision denying class certification. Citing the 2nd Circuitโs 2023 Goldman ruling, Oetken said there was a mismatch between the CEOโs general comments about Kirkland Lakeโs plan to grow organically and the โcorrective disclosureโ of the M&A deal. The judge looked at a variety of factors, including consideration of whether Kirkland Lakeโs share price would have been different if the CEO had made an equally generic statement acknowledging that the company was โconsidering external growth through M&A.โ He concluded that Kirkland Lake had rebutted the presumption that the CEOโs alleged misrepresentations affected the companyโs share price.
Oetken reached the same conclusion about the CEOโs โminimum standardsโ statement, despite acknowledging that the statement was not as generic as the CEOโs comments about organic growth.
The judge said there was nevertheless a โsubstantive mismatchโ between the CEOโs statements and Kirkland Lakeโs subsequent disclosure of the 2019 deal, pointing to defense arguments that the minimum standards comment was meant to address Kirklandโs long-term, forward-looking expectations for acquired companies rather than in-the-moment metrics for merger partners.
In their petition for interlocutory appeal, investors argued that Oetken misconstrued the Goldman test in several ways.
For one, they said, when the judge cited Goldmanโs โmismatchโ test to justify his heightened analysis of the CEOโs minimum standards statement, he went too far by concluding that the statement was not false. Thatโs a question for jurors, not judges, according to the petition.
Investors also argued that Oetken wrongly applied heightened scrutiny to the CEOโs statements about growing organically instead of seeking M&A deals. Those statements, the petition argued, were not nearly as generic as the anodyne reassurances about Goldman Sachs' ethics in the case that led to the 2nd Circuitโs Goldman test.
Oetken was too quick, according to investors, to apply Goldmanโs โsearching price impact analysisโ to relatively specific statements that were not a clear mismatch with the marketโs back-end reaction to the 2019 deal.
โDrawing the right line is important,โ investors said, because the Goldman mismatch test โputs a heavy thumb on the scale against a finding of price impact.โ
Kirkland Lake, as you would expect, countered that the petition itself shows the intensely fact-bound nature of Oetkenโs decision, which, in the companyโs view, faithfully applied the 2nd Circuitโs guidance from the 2023 Goldman decision.
โNone of these case-specific objections to the district courtโs careful opinion require this courtโs immediate intervention, particularly when petitioner can appeal this ruling after final judgment, and particularly when the district courtโs careful decision was in any event correct,โ the Kirkland Lake brief said.
Investorsโ lawyers at Goldstein Russell and Kirkland Lake's counsel from Paul Weiss declined to comment. Shareholders were represented below by Christian Levis of Lowey Dannenberg, who did not respond to a query. Kirkland Lake's parent, Agnico Eagle, also did not respond.
When the 2nd Circuit issued its 2023 Goldman ruling, it acknowledged that its new test for class certification was โcomplex,โ and that โwhatever analytical approaches might be warranted in future cases remains to be seen.โ
Kirkland Lake investors are hoping the appeals court will use their case to clarify when and how trial judges should apply the Goldman mismatch test. But first, theyโll have to persuade a panel of judges to take the case during next weekโs oral argument.
Read more:
Goldman Sachs appellate ruling is boon for securities class action defendants
Kirkland Lake Gold sued in U.S. over Detour purchase
๊ด๋ จ ์์ฐ
์ต์ ๋ด์ค
๋ฉด์ฑ ์กฐํญ: XM Group ํ์ฌ๋ ์ฒด๊ฒฐ ์ ์ฉ ์๋น์ค์ ์จ๋ผ์ธ ๊ฑฐ๋ ํ๋ซํผ์ ๋ํ ์ ๊ทผ์ ์ ๊ณตํ์ฌ, ๊ฐ์ธ์ด ์น์ฌ์ดํธ์์ ๋๋ ์น์ฌ์ดํธ๋ฅผ ํตํด ์ด์ฉ ๊ฐ๋ฅํ ์ฝํ ์ธ ๋ฅผ ๋ณด๊ฑฐ๋ ์ฌ์ฉํ ์ ์๋๋ก ํ์ฉํฉ๋๋ค. ์ด์ ๋ํด ๋ณ๊ฒฝํ๊ฑฐ๋ ํ์ฅํ ์๋๋ ์์ต๋๋ค. ์ด๋ฌํ ์ ๊ทผ ๋ฐ ์ฌ์ฉ์๋ ๋ค์ ์ฌํญ์ด ํญ์ ์ ์ฉ๋ฉ๋๋ค: (i) ์ด์ฉ ์ฝ๊ด, (ii) ์ํ ๊ฒฝ๊ณ , (iii) ์์ ๋ฉด์ฑ ์กฐํญ. ๋ฐ๋ผ์, ์ด๋ฌํ ์ฝํ ์ธ ๋ ์ผ๋ฐ์ ์ธ ์ ๋ณด์ ๋ถ๊ณผํฉ๋๋ค. ํนํ, ์จ๋ผ์ธ ๊ฑฐ๋ ํ๋ซํผ์ ์ฝํ ์ธ ๋ ๊ธ์ต ์์ฅ์์์ ๊ฑฐ๋์ ๋ํ ๊ถ์ ๋ ์ ์์ด ์๋๋๋ค. ๊ธ์ต ์์ฅ์์์ ๊ฑฐ๋๋ ์๋ณธ์ ์๋นํ ์ํ์ ์๋ฐํฉ๋๋ค.
์จ๋ผ์ธ ๊ฑฐ๋ ํ๋ซํผ์ ๊ณต๊ฐ๋ ๋ชจ๋ ์๋ฃ๋ ๊ต์ก/์ ๋ณด ๋ชฉ์ ์ผ๋ก๋ง ์ ๊ณต๋๋ฉฐ, ๊ธ์ต, ํฌ์์ธ ๋๋ ๊ฑฐ๋ ์กฐ์ธ ๋ฐ ๊ถ๊ณ , ๊ฑฐ๋ ๊ฐ๊ฒฉ ๊ธฐ๋ก, ๊ธ์ต ์ํ ๋๋ ์์น ์๋ ๊ธ์ต ํ๋ก๋ชจ์ ์ ๊ฑฐ๋ ์ ์ ๋๋ ๊ถ์ ๋ฅผ ํฌํจํ์ง ์์ผ๋ฉฐ, ํฌํจํด์๋ ์๋ฉ๋๋ค.
์ด ์น์ฌ์ดํธ์ ํฌํจ๋ ๋ชจ๋ ์๊ฒฌ, ๋ด์ค, ๋ฆฌ์์น, ๋ถ์, ๊ฐ๊ฒฉ, ๊ธฐํ ์ ๋ณด ๋๋ ์ 3์ ์ฌ์ดํธ์ ๋ํ ๋งํฌ์ ๊ฐ์ด XM์ด ์ค๋นํ๋ ์ฝํ ์ธ ๋ฟ๋ง ์๋๋ผ, ์ 3์ ์ฝํ ์ธ ๋ ์ผ๋ฐ ์์ฅ ๋ ผํ์ผ๋ก์ "ํ์ฌ" ๊ธฐ์ค์ผ๋ก ์ ๊ณต๋๋ฉฐ, ํฌ์ ์กฐ์ธ์ผ๋ก ์ฌ๊ฒจ์ง์ง ์์ต๋๋ค. ๋ชจ๋ ์ฝํ ์ธ ๊ฐ ํฌ์ ๋ฆฌ์์น๋ก ํด์๋๋ ๊ฒฝ์ฐ, ํฌ์ ๋ฆฌ์์น์ ๋ ๋ฆฝ์ฑ์ ์ด์งํ๊ธฐ ์ํด ๊ณ ์๋ ๋ฒ์ ์๊ฑด์ ๋ฐ๋ผ ์ฝํ ์ธ ๊ฐ ์๋๋์ง ์์์ผ๋ฉฐ, ์ค๋น๋์ง ์์๋ค๋ ์ ์ ์ธ์งํ๊ณ ๋์ํด์ผ ํฉ๋๋ค. ๋ฐ๋ผ์, ๊ด๋ จ ๋ฒ๋ฅ ๋ฐ ๊ท์ ์ ๋ฐ๋ฅธ ๋ง์ผํ ์ปค๋ฎค๋์ผ์ด์ ์ด๋ผ๊ณ ๊ฐ์ฃผ๋ฉ๋๋ค. ์ฌ๊ธฐ์์ ์ ๊ทผํ ์ ์๋ ์์ ์ธ๊ธํ ์ ๋ณด์ ๋ํ ๋น๋ ๋ฆฝ ํฌ์ ๋ฆฌ์์น ๋ฐ ์ํ ๊ฒฝ๊ณ ์๋ฆผ์ ์ฝ๊ณ , ์ดํดํ์๊ธฐ ๋ฐ๋๋๋ค.