Two Subprime Cases Face Harsh Judicial Scrutiny

Two Subprime Cases Face Harsh Judicial Scrutiny - 5/19/2009

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright © 2001
Stanford Law School

2009 News and Press Releases

SEARCH

News	News 2009
HEADLINES \| SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSALS \| COURT FILINGS LINKS TO OTHER NEWS \| NEWS ARCHIVE	HEADLINES ARCHIVED SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSALS ARCHIVED

DISMISSAL NEWS:

Two Subprime Cases Face Harsh Judicial Scrutiny
Kevin LaCroix

The D & O Diary. May 19, 2009
_________________________________________________________________________

EXCERPT: In a pair of separate rulings late last week, district court judges took on the plaintiffs’ allegations in a couple of high profile lawsuits arising out of the subprime meltdown. The courts’ rulings make it clear that the plaintiffs’ allegations in these cases will be highly scrutinized, but that (in one of the two cases) the judicial hurdles are not entirely insurmountable. First, in a May 15, 2009 ruling in the Washington Mutual Securities Class Action, Western District of Washington Judge Marsha Pechman granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs’ ‘34 Act allegations, with leave to amend. She also granted the motion with respect to certain of the plaintiffs’ ’33 Act allegations, also with leave to amend, but she denied the motions to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs’ ’33 Act allegations concerning the company’s October 2007 securities offering. In granting the motions with respect to the ’34 claims, Judge Pechman was sharply critical of the clarity and organization of the plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint. She characterized the complaint as “verbose and disordered” and states that the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the elements of the claim are “spread disjointedly” throughout the complaint, as a result of which the complaint “never offers a cohesive presentation of the required elements for securities fraud for each defendant.” Judge Pechman refers to the complaint as embodying “puzzle pleading.” The opinion recounts that two days prior to oral argument on the dismissal motions, Judge Pechman had directed plaintiffs’ counsel to address the alleged misleading statements of each of the defendants and to connect the statement to the allegations allegedly showing that the defendant knew the statements were false. At the hearing, the opinion recounts, plaintiffs’ counsel “indicated that the relevant allegations were too numerous to identify even in three hours of argument.”

Back to News page | Back to Archived News 2009 page | Back to Top

�