• HOME
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • PROFILE
  • ALLEN MATKINS
  • CONTACT
Print Email Shortlink

Federal Court Finds There Can Be No Control Person Liability Without Primary Violator Privity

By Keith Paul Bishop on November 2, 2012 in California Securities Laws, Securities Litigation

Yesterday, I covered Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s holding in In re Lehman Bros. Securities & Erisa Litigation, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148177 (Oct. 15, 2012) that there is no liability under Corporations Code Section 25400 when the plaintiff and defendant dealt in different securities.  Judge Kaplan also considered the parameters of liability under Corporations Code Section 25504.  That statute imposes liability on, among others, control persons, as illustrated below:

Judge Kaplan noted that Lehman had sold the securities in firm commitment underwritings so that the initial purchasers were the members of the underwriting syndicate.  This meant that the underwriters, and not the plaintiffs, were in privity with Lehman.  Because there can be no controlling liability without a primary violation and Section 25401 requires privity between the purchaser and seller, Judge Kaplan dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under Section 25504.

Readers may recall my earlier post, “Second DCA Takes Issue With Fourth DCA Over Privity“, in which I discussed the California District Court of Appeal’s holding in Moss v. Kroner, 197 Cal. App. 4th 860 (2011).  The court in Moss found that rescission was available to a plaintiff under Section 25504 even though the plaintiff was not in privity with the defendant.  Judge Kaplan distinguished Moss on the basis that the plaintiff was in privity with the primary violator. 

For other posts on privity under the Corporate Securities Law of 1968, see:

  • Court Rejects Control Requirement For Director Liability (discussing Hellum v. Breyer, 194 Cal.App.4th 1300 (2011));
  • Is Privity Required Or Not Required Under Section 25500? (discussing Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P96,262 (March 28, 2011))
  • Court Applies California Common Law To New York Rating Agencies (discussing The Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P96,258 (N.D. Cal. March 27, 2011));
  • No Rescission Without Privity (discussing Viterbi v. Wasserman, 191 Cal. App. 4th 927 (2011)).

Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals Western Regional Conference

Next Wednesday, I’ll be in Berkeley for the Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals Western Regional Conference.  I’ll be participating in a discussion with Barbara Mathews, Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Chief Governance Officer & Secretary at Edison International.  We’re part of the “essentials” program and we will be talking about the fundamentals of corporate governance.  I spoke at the conference last year and it provides great practical advice from some of America’s leading corporations, including Chevron Corporation, The Clorox Company, Peet’s Coffee & Tea, The Walt Disney Company, and Sempra Energy.  If you are able to attend the conference, please let me know that you are a reader.

control person liabilityHellum v. BreyerIn re Lehman Brothers Securities LitigationJudge Lewis A. KaplanLouisiana Pacific Corp. v. Money Marketmoss v. KronerSection 25401Section 25501Section 25504The Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill LynchViterbi v. Wasserman
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • Bitcoin And The Corporations Code
  • If You’re Relying On The Signature Of Two Officers, You May Want To Think Again
  • Court Explicates Scope of Usury Exemption For Real Estate Brokers
  • Supreme Court To Decide If It Will Decide Whether Section 16 Plaintiff Has Constitutional Standing
  • But Wait, California May Require Even More In Annual Reports To Shareholders
  • California Requires Many Foreign Corporations To Send Annual Financial Statements To Shareholders
  • Conflict Minerals Bill In Suspense File (For Now)
  • Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
  • Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Delaware Approach To Fair Value Burden Of Proof
  • SEC Proposes John Wilkes Booth Rules
  • If I Were A Carpenter, I’d Build A Better Proxy
  • CalPERS’ Annus Horribilis: How Much Worse Will It Get?
← Previous Next →

AUTHOR

Keith Paul Bishop
Partner
(949) 553-1313
kbishop@allenmatkins.com
CONTACT ME

RECOGNITION

NEWSLETTER

TOPICS

  • Accountants
  • Administrative Procedure
  • Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product
  • Broker-Dealers
  • California Securities Laws
  • California Sui Generis
  • CalPERS/CalSTRS
  • Choice of Law/Conflict of Law
  • Corporate Governance
  • Department of Corporations
  • Derivative Suits
  • Enforcement & Investigations
  • Fairness Hearings
  • Finance Lenders
  • Financial Institutions
  • Investment Advisers
  • JOBS Act
  • Legislation
  • Limited Liability Companies
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nevada Corporations
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Partnerships
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Pseudo-Foreign Corporations
  • Public Records Act/FOIA
  • Secretary of State
  • Securities Litigation
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

YOUTUBE

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

CALENDAR

November 2012
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Copyright © 2013 California Corporate & Securities Law.

Powered by WordPress and News.

  • follow:follow:
  • Become my Facebook friend Become my Facebook friend
  • Connect with me Connect with me
  • RSS RSS
  • Tweet with me Tweet with me