City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. MBIA, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3813, 2011 WL 677404, 637 F.3d 169 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statute of limitations for a securities fraud claim begins to run only when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the violation, which means having sufficient information to plead those facts with the particularity required to survive a motion to dismiss.
Facts:
- MBIA, Inc. sells insurance policies that guarantee payments on bonds.
- In 1998, a major policyholder defaulted, leaving MBIA with a $170 million debt that threatened its credit rating.
- To avoid the negative impact, MBIA arranged a transaction with three European reinsurance companies to cover the $170 million loss 'nunc pro tunc' (retroactively).
- In exchange for covering the loss, MBIA paid the reinsurers a $3.85 million premium and committed to purchasing $297 million in future reinsurance from them on its highest-rated bonds.
- From 1998 through 2003, MBIA accounted for this transaction as income in its SEC filings, rather than as a loan.
- During these years, some articles in the financial press questioned the transaction's accounting, suggesting it was more akin to a loan than a reinsurance contract.
- In early 2005, following investigations by the SEC and the New York Attorney General, MBIA publicly restated its financials for 1998-2003, recharacterizing the transaction as a loan.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System and another pension fund ('Pension Funds') filed a class action lawsuit against MBIA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in April 2005.
- MBIA moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
- The district court granted the motion, holding that the proposed class was on 'inquiry notice' of the fraud by December 2002 and dismissed the complaint.
- The Pension Funds appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's finding but allowed the Pension Funds to amend their complaint with new evidence.
- The Pension Funds refiled the amended complaint in the district court.
- The district court again found the claim was time-barred and dismissed the complaint, leading to the current appeal before the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statute of limitations for a securities fraud claim begin to run when a plaintiff has enough information to plead the claim with sufficient particularity to survive a motion to dismiss, rather than when they are merely on inquiry notice?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis Jacobs, Chief Judge
Yes. The statute of limitations for a securities fraud claim commences only after a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the violation, including scienter, with enough detail to survive a motion to dismiss. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, the old Second Circuit 'inquiry notice' standard, which started the limitations period when a reasonable investor should have begun investigating, is no longer valid. Merck established that the clock begins when a diligent investigation would have discovered the violation. This court clarifies that 'discovery' occurs when a plaintiff has gathered sufficient information to adequately plead the facts of the violation, including the 'strong inference' of scienter required by federal securities law, and survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Furthermore, a statute of limitations cannot begin to run before the plaintiff's claim has accrued, which for a securities fraud claim is not until the plaintiff actually purchases or sells the security in question.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the Supreme Court's ruling in Merck for the Second Circuit, creating a more concrete and plaintiff-friendly standard for the statute of limitations in securities fraud cases. By linking the 'discovery' of fraud to the ability to meet heightened pleading standards, the court replaced a vague 'duty to investigate' trigger with a practical litigation-based test. This makes it more difficult for defendants to obtain early dismissals on timeliness grounds based on ambiguous 'storm warnings' in the public domain. The ruling effectively extends the time plaintiffs have to bring a claim, as they must be able to not just suspect fraud, but to plead it with the particularity required to initiate a viable lawsuit.
