Jesse Bernstein discusses securities law, including recent Supreme Court rulings and a victorious case involving Elon Musk's tweet. They explore the history of securities laws, the challenges of securities litigation, and upcoming issues in the field.
Securities law encompasses various investment types beyond stocks and bonds under the Howey test, highlighting the broad scope of securities litigation.
PSLRA raised pleading standards to establish scienter and created a safe harbor for forward-looking statements, influencing the dynamics of securities class actions.
Deep dives
Overview of Securities Litigation and Personal Background
Securities litigation, a complex and ever-evolving field, is discussed in this podcast episode featuring Jesse Bernstein, co-head of the Securities Litigation Practice in New York City. Jesse shares his personal journey into securities law, initially reluctant due to his father's influence but later embracing it as his area of expertise, constituting 85% of his practice. The episode highlights the diversity of securities that can be deemed as investments, beyond stocks and bonds, under the Howey test.
Key Elements of Securities Law and Class Actions
The podcast delves into the fundamental elements of securities law, focusing on the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which govern initial and secondary market transactions respectively. Section 11 and Section 12 of the 1933 Act provide investors with the right to sue for misleading statements, emphasizing the importance of traceability in securities litigation. Contrasting the intentions required under the 1933 and 1934 Acts, the discussion explores the significance of intent to defraud in litigations under these laws.
Private Rights of Action and PSLRA Impact
The conversation shifts towards exploring the implications of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) in curbing perceived abuses within securities class actions. The podcast outlines the higher pleading standards enforced by the PSLRA, emphasizing the requirement of a strong inference of scienter to proceed with a lawsuit. Additional provisions, such as the automatic stay of discovery during motions to dismiss, and the PSLRA safe harbor for forward-looking statements, are discussed in relation to their impact on securities litigation dynamics.
Future Trends in Securities Litigation
Anticipating future trends in securities litigation, the discussion identifies evolving issues such as the definition of materiality in risk disclosures and the interpretation of forward-looking statements concerning potential risks. The evolving nature of litigation standards, notably in addressing hypothetical risks and the materiality of disclosed information, sets the stage for ongoing debates within the securities law landscape. While acknowledging the stability of core securities laws, the episode underscores the continuous evolution and nuanced interpretations at play in shaping the future of securities litigation.
John is joined by Jesse Bernstein, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York Office and Co-Chair of the Securities Litigation Practice. Jesse explains that the term “securities” applies not only to stocks and bonds, but arguably to any situation where a group of investors place their resources into a common entity where they expect to make profits from the efforts of others. He describes the sources of securities law, including state blue sky laws, the Securities Act of 1933 (which focuses on initial issuances), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which focuses on intentional misrepresentations in securities transactions and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (which sought to curb perceived abuses in securities litigation by raising the pleading standards required to establish scienter and creating a safe harbor for forward looking statements). They discuss the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Moab Partners v. Macquarie Infrastructure that pure omissions of material fact are not actionable under Rule 10(b)(5) because the rule only covers affirmative misstatements. Jesse then explains how a Quinn Emanuel team obtained a jury verdict last year in Elon Musk’s favor in a rare securities class action trial on a $12 billion claim based on Mr. Musk’s tweet about taking Tesla private. He describes the arguments made concerning materiality and loss causation that ultimately led to the victory. Finally, they discuss upcoming issues in securities law including how the Macquarie decision will impact cases.