class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs
   
   
 
   

FORUM

« Suggested reading | Stop the presses: p/i law firm competes on price »

August 06, 2004


Asher v. Baxter International

In the early 1990s, any publicly-traded corporation that had a sizable drop in stock price found itself a defendant in a shareholder class action lawsuit with some concocted allegation that previous disclosures to the public were misleading. Corporations were hesitant to make public forecasts; if something went wrong, and the forecast was missed, they would be forced to prove that the erroneous forecast was a good-faith mistake rather than an attempt to defraud the public. Nuisance settlements to avoid expensive and time-consuming litigation were common. One of the important provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was the adoption of a safe harbor for forward-looking statements that are accompanied by "meaningful cautionary language."

A recent Seventh Circuit opinion, Asher v. Baxter International, Inc., has interpreted this safe harbor quite narrowly by holding that a court, in most circumstances, cannot determine whether cautionary language is "meaningful" in the procedural posture of a motion to dismiss. In the words of Lyle Roberts, "the safe harbor may just be a safe puddle." While the PSLRA continues to provide some limits on discovery, in courts that follow Asher, only plaintiffs unable to draft a complaint to fit within the Asher loophole will not be allowed to conduct "fishing expeditions" into defendants' documents--and the end result may well be a return to the pre-PSLRA equilibrium of nuisance settlements. If so, it would be a good example of the potential ineffectiveness of piecemeal reform.

David Furbush and I have a short article analyzing the case on the O'Melveny website. ("Court revives investors' lawsuit over Baxter financial projections", Bloomberg News, Jul. 30).

Posted by Ted Frank at 05:45 PM | TrackBack (0)



categories:
Corporate Governance
Procedure









 

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.