Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
396 F.3d 161 (2005)
Rule of Law:
To establish loss causation in a securities fraud claim, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant's misstatement or omission concealed the very risk that materialized and was the cause of the plaintiff's economic loss. Alleging that a fraudulent recommendation artificially inflated the purchase price of a security is insufficient on its own.
Facts:
- Merrill Lynch & Co., through its Internet Group headed by analyst Henry M. Blodget, issued research reports on internet companies 24/7 Media, Inc. and Interliant, Inc.
- These public reports consistently rated the companies' stocks as "buy" or "accumulate" and set high price targets.
- Plaintiffs allege that privately, Blodget and other analysts held negative views of these stocks and knew the recommendations were false.
- The alleged motive for the falsely optimistic reports was to attract and maintain lucrative investment-banking business for Merrill Lynch from these and other internet companies.
- John Kilgour Lentell, Brett Raynes, and Juliet Raynes, among other investors, purchased shares of 24/7 Media and Interliant during the period when Merrill Lynch was issuing these positive recommendations.
- Merrill's reports also contained an "Investment Risk Rating," which consistently rated both 24/7 Media and Interliant as grade "D," indicating a high risk and high potential for price volatility.
- The stock prices of both 24/7 Media and Interliant eventually plummeted, resulting in significant losses for the investors.
Procedural Posture:
- John Kilgour Lentell and other investors filed class-action securities fraud lawsuits against Merrill Lynch & Co. and Henry M. Blodget in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidated approximately 140 related cases before the district court.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaints, holding that they were untimely and, alternatively, failed to adequately plead loss causation.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with Merrill Lynch and Blodget as appellees.
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 securities fraud complaint sufficiently plead loss causation by alleging that a defendant's false stock recommendations artificially inflated the stock's purchase price, without alleging that the subsequent decline in the stock's value was caused by a corrective disclosure of the fraud or the materialization of a risk concealed by the fraud?
Opinions:
Majority - Jacobs
No. To sufficiently plead loss causation, a plaintiff must allege a causal link between the defendant's alleged misconduct and the economic harm suffered. A complaint fails to plead loss causation if it only alleges that a misrepresentation induced a 'purchase-time value disparity' by artificially inflating the stock's price, without connecting the fraud to the subsequent loss. The plaintiff must allege that the loss was a foreseeable consequence of the fraud, meaning the misrepresentation concealed the specific risk that later materialized and caused the decline in the security's value. Here, the plaintiffs failed to allege that the market reacted negatively to a corrective disclosure revealing the falsity of Merrill's recommendations. Furthermore, they did not allege that Merrill's fraud concealed the actual risk that caused their losses—namely, the inherent price volatility of high-risk internet stocks, a risk that was, in fact, disclosed in the very same reports containing the fraudulent recommendations.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the loss causation pleading standard in the Second Circuit for securities fraud cases. It clarifies that plaintiffs cannot simply rely on a 'fraud-on-the-market' theory to allege that they overpaid for a stock; they must draw a direct line from the specific misrepresentation to the ultimate economic loss. The ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss when a stock's decline coincides with a broader market downturn, as it requires them to untangle the effects of the alleged fraud from other market forces. This precedent forces plaintiffs to plead with greater specificity how a lie about an analyst's opinion, rather than disclosed underlying business risks, caused their investment to fail.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (2005)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"