Ross v. A. H. Robins Co.
607 F.2d 545, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11628, 28 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 25 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may pursue a claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, even if the alleged false or misleading statements were contained in documents filed with the SEC and could also be actionable under Section 18; however, the complaint must plead fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including specific factual bases for allegations of scienter and relevant timelines.
Facts:
- Kalman and Anita Ross purchased 100 shares of common stock of A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (Robins), a pharmaceutical manufacturer, on July 23, 1973.
- Robins manufactured and distributed an intrauterine birth control device called the Daikon Shield.
- From approximately April 1972 through July 1974, Robins and its directors/officers allegedly engaged in a scheme to deceive investors by disseminating false and misleading information about the Daikon Shield's safety and effectiveness.
- Robins' public statements in its 1970 and 1971 Annual Reports and a March 1972 prospectus highlighted the Daikon Shield's significant business impact and stressed its safety, reliability, and efficiency.
- During the period of alleged misrepresentation, Robins and its individual defendants allegedly knew or recklessly disregarded serious questions about the Daikon Shield's safety and efficiency, including significantly higher pregnancy rates, increased medical removals due to pain, bleeding, and infection, insufficient clinical data, and an alarming rise in septic abortions and deaths, as evidenced in part by an April 1972 unpublished study by Mary Gabrielson.
- Robins and its officers/directors allegedly failed to make proper and timely disclosures of these adverse facts and the substantial risks to the company's reputation and potential liability.
- Further misleading statements, continuing to speak positively about the company and its prospects without disclosing the Daikon Shield's serious problems, were allegedly made in 10-K forms (1972, 1973), several press releases, and the 1973 Annual Report.
- Beginning in mid-May 1974, information about the Daikon Shield's severe medical problems began to be publicly disclosed, leading to investigations, over 500 product liability lawsuits, and a drop in Robins' common stock value from approximately $19 to $13 per share on the New York Stock Exchange.
- Plaintiffs alleged that their stock purchases were made at prices inflated by these misleading reports and failures to disclose adverse information.
Procedural Posture:
- Kalman and Anita Ross filed an original class action complaint against A.H. Robins Company, Inc. and seven individual directors/officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 23, 1977.
- On April 6, 1978, the district court (Judge Pierce) dismissed the original complaint for failure to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) Fed.R.Civ.P., granting leave to replead.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 19, 1978, followed by a corrected amended complaint on June 1, 1978.
- Defendants moved the district court to dismiss the corrected amended complaint, arguing that: (1) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; (2) Section 18 of the Exchange Act provided the exclusive remedy for the acts complained of; and (3) the complaint failed to comply with Rule 9(b) Fed.R.Civ.P.
- The district court (Judge Pierce) dismissed the action with prejudice, ruling that for statements filed with the SEC, Section 18 was the exclusive remedy, and that plaintiffs failed to plead with the specificity required by Rule 9(b), specifically lacking particularity on the timing of defendants' knowledge and the circumstances supporting that belief.
- Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) appeared as amicus curiae (friend of the court), urging reversal of the district court's determination that the action could not be brought under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a plaintiff precluded from maintaining a securities fraud action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 when the alleged false or misleading statements are contained in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and does a complaint sufficiently plead fraud under Rule 9(b) if it fails to particularize the time when defendants allegedly knew or recklessly disregarded undisclosed information and the specific circumstances giving rise to that belief?
Opinions:
Majority - Mishler, District Judge
No, a plaintiff is not precluded from maintaining a securities fraud action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 simply because the alleged false or misleading statements were contained in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; however, the plaintiffs' complaint did not sufficiently plead fraud under Rule 9(b) because it failed to particularize the time when defendants allegedly knew or recklessly disregarded undisclosed information and the specific circumstances giving rise to that belief. The court reversed the district court's holding that Section 18 of the Exchange Act provides an exclusive remedy for misstatements in SEC filings. The court reasoned that while some Supreme Court decisions suggested caution against expanding implied remedies, those cases dealt with creating new remedies or significantly broadening existing ones beyond Congressional intent. Here, a private remedy under § 10(b) is well-established. Relying on Fischman v. Raytheon Manufacturing Co., the court noted that conduct actionable under a more specific section of the securities acts can also be actionable under § 10(b) if it includes an element of fraud. The critical difference between § 10(b) and § 18 is the plaintiff's burden: § 10(b) requires pleading and proving scienter (intent to defraud or reckless disregard), while § 18 places the burden on the defendant to prove good faith and lack of knowledge. This 'far more difficult task' for plaintiffs under § 10(b) justifies allowing it alongside § 18. The court further argued that precluding § 10(b) for filed documents would effectively deprive open market investors, who rely on market-affected prices rather than direct reliance on filings, of a remedy. Such a result would be incongruous and would encourage corporate managers to file misrepresentations with the SEC to insulate themselves from broader § 10(b) liability. Thus, the court concluded that § 10(b) serves as a primary mechanism for open market investors to seek redress against fraudulent market activity. However, the court affirmed the district court's determination that the complaint failed to meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) for fraud. The court highlighted that Rule 9(b) ensures fair notice to defendants, protects their reputations, and diminishes the possibility of largely groundless claims being used for settlement leverage. While the plaintiffs adequately identified the specific documents containing alleged misrepresentations, the complaint was deficient in failing to allege with specificity the circumstances giving rise to an inference of fraud, particularly regarding defendants' knowledge or reckless disregard of the Daikon Shield's problems. The complaint did not clarify the relationship of the 'Mary Gabrielson study' to Robins or whether defendants knew of it, nor did it attribute knowledge of many critical facts (e.g., number of deaths, septic abortions) to the defendants. Crucially, it failed to fix the time when defendants allegedly came into possession of this information. While Rule 9(b) allows for general averment of knowledge, plaintiffs must supply a factual basis for these conclusory allegations, establishing events that give rise to a strong inference of knowledge or reckless disregard, and must fix the time when these events occurred. The complaint was also deficient in failing to specify the time period of the stock price drop from $19 to $13 and whether it had risen since, which is necessary to determine if plaintiffs sustained a viable loss. Despite these deficiencies, the court remanded the case, granting the plaintiffs an additional, final opportunity to replead to conform with Rule 9(b), given its hesitancy to preclude a potentially meritorious claim.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision clarifying the interplay between different provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, particularly by affirming that Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 provide an overlapping, non-exclusive remedy for fraud even when more specific remedies like Section 18 are available. This ruling is crucial for investor protection, as it allows open market investors, who typically rely on market price rather than direct review of SEC filings, to seek redress. Simultaneously, the decision reinforces the stringent pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) in fraud cases, mandating plaintiffs to provide specific factual bases for allegations of scienter and to establish clear timelines, thereby balancing investor access to justice with the need to deter frivolous litigation.
