Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
NEW YORK — A Southern District of New York judge has raised the bar for class certification in securities fraud lawsuits that accuse stock analysts of tailoring their evaluations to curry favor with their firms’ institutional clients. In an area of law the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has described as being in flux, Judge Jed Rakoff rejected class action status for three consolidated suits against Lehman Brothers even though the allegations were sufficient to survive motions to dismiss. To qualify for class status when pursuing a “fraud on the market” claim, Judge Rakoff wrote in DeMarco v. Lehman Brothers, 03-3470, plaintiffs must demonstrate that large numbers of stock buyers relied upon the analysts’ allegedly ginned up recommendation. He rejected arguments mounted by plaintiffs lawyers that a market impact from an analyst’s report could be presumed. Instead, plaintiffs must make “a prima facie showing” that the analyst’s report moved the market price of the stock “in a reasonable quantifiable respect,” the judge said. That preliminary showing must be demonstrated by the production of “admissible evidence,” he added. The failure to make such a showing doomed the effort to secure class action status in the three cases against Lehman Brothers and its analyst, Michael Stanek, Judge Rakoff ruled. The suits claimed that Stanek had issued public reports strongly recommending the purchase of stock in a computer software company called RealNetworks Inc. Simultaneously, however, the complaints alleged that he recommended to preferred clients that they sell the stock. Also, according to the complaints, Stanek told his preferred clients that he had touted RealNetworks’ stock because it was using Lehman Brothers as one of its investment bankers. Suits raising similar claims against investment houses have proliferated nationwide since spring 2002, when New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer accused Merrill Lynch of skewing its stock assessments to help its investment banking clients. Judge Rakoff rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that market impact could be presumed under a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court precedent from Basic v. Levinson that said misleading statements by a company operate as a fraud in “a developed market” even if investors do not rely on the statements. Basic v. Levinson, which applied to statements issued by a company, should not be extended to statements issued by analysts, Judge Rakoff concluded. Because a statement of opinion issued by an analyst is “far more subjective and far less certain” than a statement of fact issued by a company, he wrote, “no automatic impact on the price of a security can be presumed.” Judge Rakoff made it plain that a plaintiff’s proffer of “admissible evidence” of market impact should be rigorously examined. Daniel Wise is a reporter with the New York Law Journal , a Recorder affiliate.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.