New Orleans Employees' Retirement System v. Omnicom Group, Inc.
2010 WL 774311, 597 F.3d 501 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A stock price decline caused by a negative characterization of previously disclosed public information does not constitute a corrective disclosure sufficient to prove loss causation in a securities fraud claim. To establish loss causation, a plaintiff must show that the stock drop was caused by the revelation of new, undisclosed facts that correct the market's understanding of the alleged fraud.
Facts:
- Omnicom Group, Inc., an advertising holding company, began investing in internet companies whose value started to decline in 2000.
- In the first quarter of 2001, to avoid reporting losses from these declining internet assets, Omnicom created a new entity, Seneca, with Pegasus Partners II, L.P.
- Omnicom transferred its internet companies (valued at $277.5 million) and $47.5 million in cash to Seneca in exchange for preferred stock, effectively moving the failing assets off its own balance sheet.
- From May 2001 through May 2002, numerous financial news articles reported on the Seneca transaction, explicitly suggesting it was a mechanism for Omnicom to get struggling internet stocks off its books.
- Omnicom's stock price did not experience any statistically significant drop following these initial 2001-2002 reports.
- On May 22, 2002, Robert Callander, the Chair of Omnicom’s Audit Committee, resigned from the board after expressing concerns about the Seneca transaction and other accounting practices.
- On June 12, 2002, The Wall Street Journal published a detailed article about Callander's resignation, his concerns about Seneca, and Omnicom's aggressive accounting, leading to a 25% drop in Omnicom's stock price over the next two days.
Procedural Posture:
- The New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System and other plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Omnicom Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, claiming Omnicom engaged in fraudulent accounting related to its Seneca transaction.
- The district court granted Omnicom's motion to dismiss in part but denied it with regard to the Seneca transaction claims.
- The district court subsequently certified a plaintiff class of investors.
- After discovery, Omnicom moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs could not prove the essential element of loss causation.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Omnicom, dismissing the complaint in its entirety.
- The lead plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 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 a stock price decline following a negative news article that re-characterizes previously public information about an alleged accounting fraud, rather than revealing new, undisclosed facts, suffice to establish the element of loss causation required for a Section 10(b) securities fraud claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Winter, Circuit Judge
No, a stock price decline following a negative news article that re-characterizes previously public information is insufficient to establish loss causation. To prove loss causation under Section 10(b), a plaintiff must show that the economic loss was caused by either a 'corrective disclosure' of new facts or the 'materialization of the risk' concealed by the fraud. Here, the plaintiffs failed on both theories. The June 2002 Wall Street Journal article did not constitute a corrective disclosure because the essential facts about the Seneca transaction—that it was designed to move declining internet assets off Omnicom's books—had already been reported and digested by the market a year earlier without causing a price drop. The article was merely a 'negative characterization of already-public information' combined with news of a director's resignation. Furthermore, the materialization of the risk theory fails because the stock drop was not a foreseeable consequence of the concealed fraud itself, but rather a reaction to a director's resignation and negative press, a connection the court found 'far too tenuously connected' to the alleged fraud to establish proximate cause.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'loss causation' element in securities fraud litigation, particularly for cases relying on the fraud-on-the-market theory. By distinguishing between a true 'corrective disclosure' of new facts and a 'negative characterization' of old information, the court raised the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs. The ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to link a stock price drop to an alleged fraud if the underlying facts were already public, even if they were not widely understood or were presented in a different light. This precedent forces plaintiffs to demonstrate that the specific market-moving event revealed new information that directly corrected a prior misrepresentation, thereby narrowing the scope of events that can trigger liability for a subsequent stock decline.
