In re Time Warner Inc. Securities Litigation
9 F.3d 259 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a corporation publicly announces a specific business plan and an intended approach for reaching its goal, it may have a duty under securities laws to disclose other, alternative approaches being actively and seriously considered if their nondisclosure would render the prior statements materially misleading.
Facts:
- In July 1989, Time Inc. merged with Warner Communications, creating Time Warner Inc., which incurred over $10 billion in debt from the acquisition.
- To reduce this debt, Time Warner publicly announced a plan to find international 'strategic partners' who would invest billions of dollars into the company.
- Throughout the class period (December 1990 to June 1991), Time Warner officials made a series of generally positive public statements about the progress of the search for these strategic partners.
- The search for strategic partners proved to be less successful than the company had hoped.
- While publicly touting the strategic alliance plan, Time Warner began secretly exploring an alternative method of raising capital: a new stock offering (a 'rights offering').
- On June 6, 1991, Time Warner announced the rights offering plan.
- The announcement of the rights offering, which would dilute the value of existing shares, caused a substantial decline in the price of Time Warner's stock.
Procedural Posture:
- ZVI Trading Corp. Employees' Money Purchase Pension Plan and Trust and Barry Zolon sued Time Warner Inc. and four of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for violations of federal securities laws.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with Time Warner as the appellee.
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 a corporation have a duty under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act to disclose that it is actively and seriously considering an alternative business plan, such as a stock rights offering, when its prior public statements have focused exclusively on a different plan, such as seeking strategic partners?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Newman
Yes. When a corporation is pursuing a specific business goal and announces that goal as well as an intended approach for reaching it, it may come under an obligation to disclose other approaches to reaching the goal when those approaches are under active and serious consideration. A duty to disclose arises whenever secret information renders prior public statements materially misleading. Time Warner's public statements hyping strategic alliances could have been understood by reasonable investors to mean that the company hoped to solve its entire debt problem through this method. The active consideration of a dilutive rights offering was a fact that could place the statements concerning strategic alliances in a materially different light, and its omission could therefore be actionable. The court rejected the district court's view that a duty to disclose alternatives only arises when the alternatives are mutually exclusive, holding that the duty is broader.
Dissenting - Judge Winter
No. Although agreeing that the failure to disclose the rights offering was a material omission, the dissent argues that the plaintiffs failed to plead a plausible motive for scienter. The majority's theory—that Time Warner delayed disclosure to keep the stock price artificially high to lessen the dilutive effect of the offering—is implausible and at odds with the efficient market hypothesis. The announcement of the coercive rights offering, which required a public SEC filing and a waiting period, would have been an unmistakable negation of the earlier optimistic statements about strategic alliances. It is far-fetched to believe that management could expect any lingering effects from the old statements to survive the shocking news of the rights offering, and therefore, no rational motive for the fraudulent omission existed.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and expands a corporation's duty to disclose under Rule 10b-5. It establishes that the duty is not limited to correcting or updating prior statements that have become factually untrue, but also extends to disclosing alternative plans that, while not mutually exclusive, materially alter the 'total mix' of information available to investors. The decision rejects a narrow interpretation of corporate disclosure obligations, making it harder for companies to selectively publicize positive potential strategies while secretly considering less favorable ones. This ruling places a greater burden on companies to provide a more complete picture of their strategic thinking once they choose to speak on a particular business goal.
Unlock the full brief for In re Time Warner Inc. Securities Litigation