Beecher v. Able
435 F. Supp. 397 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Section 11(e) of the Securities Act of 1933, the 'value' of a security for calculating damages is its realistic value at the time of suit, which is not necessarily its market price and may be adjusted by the court to account for factors like panic selling. A defendant bears the burden of proving that a decline in the security's price was caused by factors other than the material misstatement in the registration statement.
Facts:
- On July 12, 1966, Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. (Douglas) issued $75 million in convertible debentures to the public.
- The prospectus accompanying the debentures contained a prediction that Douglas would 'break-even' for the fiscal year 1966.
- On September 27, 1966, widespread rumors circulated that Douglas was about to announce a large operating loss for its third quarter.
- On September 28, 1966, Douglas formally announced a pre-tax loss of approximately $32.8 million for the third quarter, revealing the break-even prediction to be false.
- Following the announcement, the market price of the debentures, which had already declined from 100 to 88, fell sharply.
- By October 14, 1966, the closing market price of the debentures was 75.5.
- During this period, Douglas was experiencing a 'cash tightness' and stricter credit terms from its banks, but also had a substantial backlog of orders suggesting a potential for future recovery.
Procedural Posture:
- Lawrence J. Beecher and other investors filed several class-action lawsuits against Douglas Aircraft Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The court consolidated the various actions.
- The court bifurcated the proceedings, scheduling a trial first on the issue of liability.
- In a prior Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the court determined that Douglas had issued a materially false prospectus in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.
- The instant proceeding is a trial before the district court solely on the issue of calculating the damages owed to the plaintiffs.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Section 11(e) of the Securities Act of 1933, is the 'value' of a security at the time of suit determined solely by its market price, and can a defendant avoid liability if the security's price recovers after the lawsuit is filed?
Opinions:
Majority - Motley, District Judge
No, the 'value' of a security is not determined solely by its market price, and subsequent price recovery does not eliminate a defendant's liability for damages measured at the time of suit. Section 11(e) uses the terms 'price' and 'value' distinctly, indicating they are different concepts. Market price is merely evidence of value and can be adjusted if it is unreliable, such as when it is artificially depressed by panic selling. Here, the court determined that the market price of 75.5 on the date of suit was distorted by panic selling following the revelation of the third-quarter losses. The court adjusted this price upward to a 'fair value' of 85 by calculating what the price would have been absent the panic-driven decline. The court also held that under the statute's plain language, damages are calculated based on the value at the time of suit. Post-suit market recovery is irrelevant for plaintiffs who hold their securities and only benefits the defendant to a limited extent for those who sell after suit in a rising market under § 11(e)(3). Finally, the court found that Douglas failed to meet its burden to prove that the price decline was caused by general market conditions rather than the revealed falsity of its prospectus, as comparable securities remained stable during the same period.
Analysis:
This case provides a significant interpretation of the damages provision of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. It establishes that 'value' is a legal concept distinct from 'market price,' giving courts flexibility to determine a more realistic valuation in the face of market irrationality like panic selling. This precedent reinforces the heavy burden of proof on defendants to show 'negative causation'—that the plaintiff's loss resulted from factors other than the misrepresentation. The ruling also solidifies the 'time of suit' as the critical moment for damage calculation, confirming that subsequent market recovery does not absolve a defendant of liability, thereby preventing wrongdoers from benefiting from fortuitous market upswings after their misconduct has caused harm.
Unlock the full brief for Beecher v. Able