ILNews

Court OKs class certification in Conseco securities-fraud case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a securities-fraud case involving the Carmel-based financial and life insurance services company Conseco, a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has refused to significantly alter the class certification rules and throw out the long-established fraud-on-the-market doctrine.

The ruling comes today in Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Gary C. Wendt, et al., No. 09-2154, which stems from several lawsuits that were consolidated in the Southern District of Indiana. The suit alleges that Conseco (now CNO Financial Group) violated the Securities and Exchange Act through misleading statements about Conseco’s financial position that inflated stock prices for investors prior to the company’s bankruptcy.

Early last year, U.S. Judge David F. Hamilton on the trial bench certified a class, but the defendants resisted that certification.

“That’s not surprising, because certification substantially increases the settlement value of a securities suit,” Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote in the ruling today. “What do surprise are the arguments defendants advance, arguments that if accepted would end the use of class certification in securities cases.”

Defendants contend that even a firm as large as Conseco does not qualify for the fraud-on-the-market doctrine, which was established in the 22-year-old case of Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) that held securities sellers and purchasers relying on market price integrity are also impacted by any material misrepresentations. Along with that argument, the Conseco defendants also argue that a District judge must determine that contested statements actually caused material stock price changes before granting class certification.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., 487 F. 3d 261 (5th Cir. 2007) ruled that way, but Chief Judge Easterbrook said that jurisdiction stands alone and the 7th Circuit doesn’t agree with that stance. That court’s position would more than just tighten the class certification rules, it would make that certification virtually impossible in many securities suits.

By holding a hearing to basically determine the merits of a complaint before granting class certification, a court would basically be disregarding the federal rules established more than four decades ago. That review of the merits should be limited, the 7th Circuit ruled.

“That would resurrect the one-way-intervention model that was ditched by the 1966 amendments to Rule 23,” Chief Judge Easterbrook wrote. “Under the current rule, certification is largely independent of the merits… and a certified class can go down in flames on the merits.”

Judge Hamilton assured that the market for Conseco stock was thick enough to transmit defendants’ statements to investors by way of the price, and that finding supports the use of the fraud-on-the-market doctrine as a replacement for individual reading and reliance on the statements. As a result, the 7th Circuit found that he didn’t commit legal error or abuse his discretion.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT