Introduction: Securities Class Action Lawsuits and Shareholder Rights

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995, a lead plaintiff in a securities class action is selected by a court based on specific criteria and assumes significant responsibilities for overseeing the litigation. This structure is designed to empower investors with the largest financial stakes to control the lawsuit, rather than the attorneys.

How a lead plaintiff is selected

The selection process for a lead plaintiff is highly structured and typically follows these steps: 

1. Notice to the class: Within 20 days of filing a securities class action complaint, the initial plaintiff must publish a notice. This notice informs potential class members about the lawsuit and tells them they have 60 days to apply to be lead plaintiff.
2. Filing a motion: Interested parties, often institutional investors, must file a motion with the court seeking appointment as lead plaintiff. The deadline for these motions is strictly enforced.
3. The “largest financial interest” presumption: The PSLRA creates a rebuttable presumption that the investor or group of investors with the “largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class” is the most capable representative. This was intended to discourage frivolous lawsuits by investors with minimal losses.
4. Court review and appointment: After the 60-day period, the court reviews the motions and appoints the lead plaintiff within 90 days. To overcome the “largest financial interest” presumption, a competing applicant must prove that the presumptive lead plaintiff is either not a “typical” class member or cannot “adequately” represent the class.
   • Typicality: This means the claims of the lead plaintiff are similar to those of other class members.
   • Adequacy: This ensures the lead plaintiff has no conflicts of interest and can fairly represent the entire class.

Responsibilities of a lead plaintiff

Unlike ordinary class members, a lead plaintiff is actively involved in the litigation and has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the entire class and to protect shareholder rights.

Selecting and monitoring lead counsel

• Hiring the legal team: The lead plaintiff is responsible for selecting the law firm that will serve as lead counsel for the class, subject to court approval.
• Negotiating fees: They negotiate the fee arrangement with the law firm. This is important because legal fees and expenses are ultimately paid out of the class’s recovery, so a higher fee reduces the payout to all class members.
• Overseeing counsel: The lead plaintiff must oversee and monitor the lead counsel’s performance throughout the case  and thereby protect shareholder rights.

Directing the litigation

• Litigation strategy: The lead plaintiff makes major strategic decisions with input from legal counsel to protect shareholder rights.
• Responding to discovery: During the discovery phase, the lead plaintiff may need to provide documents related to their investment in the company and may be required to give deposition testimony.
• Settlement decisions: The lead plaintiff is a key participant in any settlement discussions or mediation and must approve any proposed settlement before it is presented to the court. 

Benefits of the lead plaintiff provision

• Increased institutional participation: The PSLRA has successfully encouraged institutional investors like pension funds to act as lead plaintiffs.
• Improved litigation outcomes: Cases with institutional investors as lead plaintiffs tend to result in higher settlement values for the class compared to those led by individual investors and can better protect shareholder rights and secure better corporate governance reforms.
• Better corporate governance: The involvement of institutional investors can also lead to long-term improvements in corporate governance at the defendant company. 

Institutional Investors Acting as Lead Plaintiffs and Their Impact

Several major institutional investors have acted as lead plaintiffs in securities class actions, leading to some of the largest settlements in history and enhanced corporate governance. Their participation, encouraged by the PSLRA, has significantly affected litigation outcomes and corporate governance.

Notable examples

• Lead Plaintiff: The Regents of the University of California served as lead plaintiff.
• Case Details: The lawsuit was filed against Enron and other financial institutions that enabled the massive accounting fraud and subsequent collapse of the energy company.
• Impact: The $7.2 billion settlement is one of the largest in securities class action history. The litigation also resulted in major non-monetary remedies that led to corporate governance reforms, including increased board independence and improved audit committee oversight.

• Lead Plaintiffs: Public pension funds, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the New York State Common Retirement Fund, served as lead plaintiffs.
• Case Details: The lawsuit alleged that Cendant, a consumer services company, engaged in a multi-billion-dollar accounting fraud.
• Impact: The settlement included a landmark $2.8 billion cash payment from Cendant and a $335 million payment from its auditor, Ernst & Young and more robust corporate governance. This case set a new standard for auditor liability and recovery in securities class actions.

• Lead Plaintiffs: The 
  Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California

   and other institutional investors were appointed to lead this case.

• Case Details: The lawsuit was filed against Wells Fargo over allegations that the bank concealed its inability to reform its business practices after a series of high-profile scandals.
• Impact: The 2023 settlement resulted in a $1 billion recovery for investors along with robust corporate governance and was part of a broader push to hold the bank accountable for misconduct.

• Lead Plaintiff: The firm representing the investors was appointed sole lead counsel in this case.
• Case Details: The lawsuit alleged that the pharmaceutical company, Valeant, made false and misleading statements about its business model and financial performance.
• Impact: The $1.2 billion settlement marked one of the largest recoveries in a securities class action against a pharmaceutical company with more robust corporate governance.

The broader impact of institutional lead plaintiffs

• Larger settlements: Studies have repeatedly shown that cases with institutional lead plaintiffs tend to result in higher settlement amounts than those led by individual investors.
• Greater deterrence: Companies, aware that sophisticated and resource-rich investors are monitoring their actions, have a stronger incentive to adhere to legal and ethical standards.
• Improved governance: Institutional investors, with their long-term investment perspective, often push for corporate governance reforms that benefit all shareholders by reducing the risk of future misconduct.
• Increased credibility: The presence of a credible institutional plaintiff can increase the legitimacy of a class action and improve its chances of achieving a favorable outcome.

Case-specific reforms from settlements

• Independent board and monitor: The court, in its settlement with WorldCom, ordered the company to accept a permanent injunction that authorized a corporate monitor to completely overhaul the company’s corporate governance.
• Active and informed board: The new governance rules mandated an active, informed, and highly independent board of directors.
• Restrictions on executive pay: Significant restrictions were placed on executive compensation packages to align them with the interests of shareholders.
• Shareholder nomination of directors: The settlement required a new system that gave shareholders a unique and more significant role in the nomination of directors.
• Prohibition of related-party transactions: To combat conflicts of interest, the settlement prohibited related-party transactions.
• Improved internal controls: Independent consultants were brought in to ensure the company eliminated the many defects in its internal controls that enabled the fraud.

• Board independence: Although the specifics of the settlement varied, the litigation contributed to a post-scandal environment where boards of directors became more active, independent, and involved in company oversight.
• Improved audit committee oversight: As a result of the litigation, Enron’s new board implemented reforms aimed at strengthening audit committee oversight.
• Increased financial disclosure: The pressure from the lawsuit and surrounding investigations led to more robust disclosure requirements, including of off-balance-sheet debt.

Mandatory reforms from Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) to Protect Shareholder Rights and Enhance Corporate Governance

• CEO and CFO certification: The act requires the CEO and CFO to personally certify the accuracy and completeness of financial reports, holding them personally liable for fraudulent statements.
• Independent audit committees: SOX requires that all members of a company’s audit committee be independent directors. It also mandates that the audit committee be responsible for hiring and overseeing the external auditor.
• Separation of audit and non-audit services: To prevent conflicts of interest, the act prohibits accounting firms from providing certain non-audit consulting services to the companies they audit.
• Internal controls: SOX introduced Section 404, which requires management to establish, maintain, and assess the effectiveness of the company’s internal controls over financial reporting.
• Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB): The act created the PCAOB to oversee the audits of public companies, an authority that previously fell to the accounting industry itself ensure better corporate governance practices. 

Other Impacts by Institutional Investors

Improved litigation outcomes

• Larger settlements: Numerous studies have demonstrated that cases led by institutional investors result in larger average settlement amounts than those led by individual plaintiffs. This is largely due to their negotiating power and significant financial stake.
• Greater deterrence: The willingness and ability of institutional investors to finance expensive litigation acts as a deterrent to corporate malfeasance. Knowing that a resourceful plaintiff may be watching encourages companies to adhere to legal and ethical standards.
• Lower dismissal rates: Cases with an institutional lead plaintiff have a lower likelihood of being dismissed, indicating a higher quality of representation and a greater capacity to withstand challenges from defendants.

Effective oversight of lead counsel

• Negotiating fees: Institutional investors possess the sophistication to negotiate attorney fees effectively, which can lead to lower legal costs and a greater net recovery for the entire class.
• Monitoring litigation: Unlike individual investors, institutions have internal staff and expertise to actively monitor the progress of a lawsuit, holding legal counsel accountable for their strategy and performance.
• Expert financial analysis: They can hire their own financial experts to independently analyze the case and damages, providing a crucial check on the figures presented by both sides.

Wider corporate governance and market impacts

• ESG activism: Institutional investors are increasingly using securities litigation to drive environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals by demanding more robust corporate governance frameworks. In the case of ExxonMobil and activist hedge fund Engine No. 1, the support of major institutional investors like BlackRock and Vanguard helped win three board seats focused on climate-related change.
• Clawback policies: Settlements involving institutional investors have led to the adoption of executive compensation clawback policies, which allow companies to reclaim pay from executives in the event of misconduct a form of enhancing corporate governance and shareholder rigts.
• Strengthened internal controls: Beyond the reforms mandated by legislation like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, institutional investors pressure companies for stricter internal controls to prevent accounting misconduct thereby enhancing shareholder rights..
• Enhanced market reputation: The presence of large, credible institutional investors in a company’s stock signals confidence to other investors, enhances the company’s market reputation, and can influence IPO pricing and valuation.

The “sell-hold” conflict

Additional Examples of Shareholder Rights

Shareholder rights and the right to information

• Inspecting books and records: Shareholders can inspect corporate books and records, including meeting minutes, bylaws, and financial reports.
• Receiving annual reports: Companies must provide shareholders with regular reports and audited financial statements.
• Requesting information for a legal purpose: Shareholders can request information for a specific purpose related to their investment, which companies must comply with unless the request is improper. 

Shareholder rights and the right to transfer ownership

• Liquidity: This right provides liquidity, especially for publicly traded stocks, allowing investors to sell their shares for cash on an exchange.
• Private company restrictions: In private companies, this right may be restricted by a shareholder agreement that dictates how shares are sold and to whom.

Financial rights

• Receive dividends: Shareholders are entitled to receive dividends when the board of directors declares them, as a share of the company’s profits.
• Claim remaining assets in liquidation: If a company liquidates, shareholders have a claim on the remaining assets after creditors and bondholders have been paid.
• Appraisal rights: In certain corporate actions, like a merger, a dissenting shareholder may demand a judicial appraisal of their shares to ensure fair value.

Voting rights

• Electing directors: Shareholders elect the members of the board of directors who oversee the company’s management.
• Approving major actions: They vote on fundamental changes such as mergers and acquisitions, amendments to the articles of incorporation, and company dissolution.
• Say-on-pay: At publicly traded companies, shareholders have a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation.

Shareholder rights and legal rights

• Class action lawsuits: Shareholders can participate in class action lawsuits when they suffer harm as a group due to securities fraud or other illegal acts.
• Derivative lawsuits: Shareholders can bring a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the corporation when directors or officers commit misconduct, like breach of fiduciary duty.
• Petitioning for dissolution: In extreme cases of fraud, mismanagement, or oppression, a shareholder may petition a court to dissolve the business.

Special shareholder rights for certain shareholders

• Preemptive rights: In some cases, shareholders have the right to buy newly issued shares before they are offered to the public, protecting their ownership percentage from being diluted.
• Minority protections: Legal protections are in place to prevent majority shareholders from unfairly oppressing or freezing out minority shareholders.
• Right to call special meetings: In some companies, shareholders holding a certain percentage of stock can demand a special meeting to address specific issues.

Examples of Successful Shareholder Activism Enforcing Shareholder Rights

Financial activism for shareholder value

• Canadian Pacific Railway (2011): Activist investor Bill Ackman of Pershing Square Capital Management initiated a proxy campaign to change the railway’s management. He argued that a new leadership team was necessary to improve performance and unlock shareholder value. Ackman successfully elected a new CEO, which helped double the share price and significantly boosted shareholder returns.
• Whole Foods / Jana Partners (2017): Hedge fund Jana Partners acquired a stake in Whole Foods and pressured the company to consider strategic alternatives, arguing the retailer was underperforming. Following the pressure from Jana and other institutional shareholders, Whole Foods sold itself to Amazon, a deal that generated significant profit for Jana Partners.
• Goodyear / Elliott Investment Management (2023): Elliott Management campaigned for changes at Goodyear, pointing to the company’s underperforming share price and flawed business strategy. The campaign resulted in the CEO’s retirement, the appointment of a new CEO, and the addition of three new directors to the board.
• VF Corp / Engaged Capital (2023): As VF Corp’s stock price and earnings declined, activist investor Engaged Capital pushed for cost-cutting and the sale of non-core brands. This resulted in VF Corp appointing a new director to its board and working with the activist to help turn the company around.

ESG and governance activism

• ExxonMobil / Engine No. 1 (2021): The small hedge fund Engine No. 1 launched a successful proxy campaign to elect three new directors to ExxonMobil’s board. The campaign focused on improving the company’s climate strategy and capital allocation. With support from major institutional investors like BlackRock, the successful proxy fight sent a powerful signal that shareholders expect companies to address climate-related risks.
• Chevron / Follow This (2021): Green shareholder group Follow This led a successful shareholder resolution at Chevron, with 61% of shareholders voting in favor of a proposal to significantly reduce the company’s “Scope 3” emissions. These are emissions from a company’s value chain, such as its customers’ use of its products, in addition to its own operations.
• Illumina / Carl Icahn (2023): Carl Icahn launched a proxy fight against Illumina, criticizing the company’s decision to acquire a cancer testing company without regulatory approval. Icahn garnered enough support to oust the company’s board chair and secure three board seats, a significant win that led to the resignation of Illumina’s CEO.
• HSBC / ShareAction (2021): Shareholder group ShareAction, supported by ClientEarth, filed a resolution pushing HSBC to end financing for fossil fuel assets. This led to a commitment from the bank to end coal financing in the EU and OECD by 2030 and worldwide by 2040.

Strategic and operational activism

• Canadian Pacific Railway / Bill Ackman (2011): As mentioned above, Ackman successfully forced a change in management, demonstrating how an activist campaign can improve a company’s operational efficiency and share price.
• Masimo Corporation / Politan Capital (2023): After Masimo’s market value dropped following a major acquisition, Politan Capital launched a proxy battle to fix what it called “broken corporate governance”. Shareholders voted for the hedge fund’s nominees to the board, forcing internal changes and focusing on capital allocation.
• Gildan Activewear / Browning West (2024): Activist fund Browning West successfully ousted the entire board of Canadian apparel company Gildan Activewear after the board fired the company’s popular CEO. The new board reinstated the former CEO and set a new strategic direction for the company.

Reputational Damages

How reputational damage occurs

• Media and public scrutiny: Securites class actions alleging misconduct and fraud can attract significant negative media attention. This generates public scrutiny and can erode trust among investors, customers, and employees.
• Loss of customer trust: Allegations of wrongdoing in securities class actionscan damage a company’s image, leading to a loss of customers, reduced sales, and decreased market share.
• Impact on investor confidence: Securities class action lawsuits can signal deeper issues with a company’s integrity and leadership. This can cause a decline in investor confidence and long-term shareholder value.
• Attracting and retaining talent: Reputational damage can make it difficult for a company to attract and retain high-quality employees, who may prefer to work for a more reputable firm.
• Decline in stock price: Securities class action lawsuits can cause an immediate and significant drop in a company’s stock price, which may persist until the matter is resolved. This is because the market reassesses the risk associated with the company’s integrity and governance.

The debate over recovery

• The argument for recovery: Some scholars and plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that stock declines directly caused by the market’s reassessment of management’s integrity should be recoverable. They contend that reputational damage is a foreseeable consequence of fraud and should be included in the damage calculation.
• The counterargument: Other finance scholars and companies argue that such damages are “collateral damage” not directly caused by the original fraudulent disclosure. They see the stock drop as a natural market reaction to the revelation of risk, not a recoverable loss.

The impact on the defendant company from securites class actions

• Costly response: A company involved securities class actions must invest heavily in crisis management and communication strategies to address the allegations and attempt to restore credibility.
• Operational disruption: The lawsuit and resulting public scrutiny can distract management from core business operations and strategic planning, further hurting the company’s performance.
• Governance reform: In some cases, such as the Cendant settlement, securities class actions compel companies to implement specific, non-monetary reforms to improve governance and repair their reputation.

Case example: Wells Fargo

• The illegal practices had a minor impact on the company’s bottom line.
• However, the revelation caused a 6% drop in Wells Fargo’s share price within days, and a 16% drop within weeks, due to investor concern over the potential management shake-up and investigations.
• The stock price decline was widely attributed to the market’s loss of trust in the company’s management and integrity—a pure reputational loss—rather than its core financial condition.

Can Reputational Damage Be Quantified in Securities Litigation?

Methods for quantifying reputational damages

• Methodology: Financial experts use event studies to analyze stock price movements following a fraud revelation and securites class actions. The goal is to separate the stock decline caused by the fraud disclosure from other market-wide or company-specific factors.
• Measurement: By comparing the company’s actual stock returns to its expected returns (based on market and industry performance), experts can calculate the “abnormal return” attributed to the negative news. A larger negative abnormal return than the estimated financial loss can suggest a reputational effect is at play.
• Limitations: Event studies face challenges in isolating the precise cause of a stock decline. Multiple news events can occur at once, and it is difficult to determine how much of the decline is due to a reputational loss versus the disclosed financial loss.

Brand and market perception studies

• Methodology: Using market research techniques, experts can measure a company’s brand value and public perception before and after a reputational event. This can involve surveys, social media analytics, and comparisons to competitors.
• Measurement: Metrics such as brand awareness, customer loyalty, and purchase intent are measured to assess the impact of the fraud on consumer behavior. This can provide an estimate of lost revenue and market share, which can then be used to calculate financial damages.
• Expert testimony: Expert witnesses, including reputation management specialists and forensic accountants, can provide testimony to explain the financial impact of this damage.

Stock price analysis

• Methodology: Some economic experts argue that reputation is a key driver of stock price, and that a decline following a fraud revelation is a direct result of damage to that reputation. They may use regression analysis and other statistical methods to estimate the impact.
• Findings: One study found that damage to reputation causes a significant portion of stock price declines upon the revelation of wrongdoing.
• Legal precedent: Some academic commentary argues for using stock market data to measure reputational harm in litigation, citing economic rationale and common law precedent.

The ongoing debate over recoverability

• The “loss causation” requirement: Federal securities laws require plaintiffs to prove “loss causation“—that the defendant’s alleged fraud actually caused the plaintiffs’ economic loss. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo reinforced this standard.
• Reputation versus fraud disclosure: Critics argue that reputational damages stem from the market’s reassessment of risk and integrity, which is distinct from the inflated stock price caused by the initial fraudulent statement. They classify these as non-recoverable “collateral damage.”
• Reputation as part of the total loss: Proponents of reputational damages recovery contend that the market’s reassessment of integrity is a foreseeable and direct consequence of fraudulent disclosure. They argue there is no basis in law or policy to deny recovery for these damages.

How Negative Publicity from Lawsuits Impacts a Company’s Stock Price and Investor Confidence

1. Stock Price Decline:

• Initial Shock and Uncertainty: Upon public announcement of a lawsuit, particularly one involving significant allegations or large potential damages, investors often react with concern and uncertainty.
• Reputational Damages and Risk Perception: Negative publicity can damage a company’s reputation, potentially affecting customer relationships, brand image, and future business prospects and shareholder rights.
• Increased Investor Risk Perception: Investors may perceive the company as riskier due to potential financial penalties, legal costs, and operational disruptions associated with the lawsuit.
• Selling Pressure and Short-Selling: This heightened risk perception can trigger selling pressure, leading to a decline in stock price. Some investors may even engage in short-selling, betting on further price declines.
• Potential for Long-Term Depression of Stock Value: Prolonged legal battles or severe reputational damages can depress a company’s stock price over an extended period.

2. Erosion of Investor Confidence:

• Damage to Trust and Faith in Management: Negative publicity can damage investor trust in management’s competence and integrity, especially if the lawsuit reveals potential wrongdoing or mismanagement.
• Concerns about Financial Stability and Future Prospects: Investors may question the company’s financial stability and ability to achieve future growth and profitability due to the uncertainty and potential costs associated with securities class actions.
• Risk of Investor Exodus: Reduced investor confidence can lead to an exodus of investors, further exacerbating the decline in stock price and making it challenging to attract new investors.
• Increased Cost of Capital: A reputational damages and heightened risk perception can increase the cost of capital, making it more expensive for the company to raise funds for operations or future investments hurting shareholder rights.

3. Factors Influencing the Severity of Impact:

• Nature and Severity of the Lawsuit: The nature and severity of the allegations in securites litigation, potential financial penalties, and likelihood of adverse outcomes significantly influence the impact on stock price and investor confidence.
• Company’s Financial Strength and Reputation: Companies with strong financials and a positive reputation may be better equipped to weather the negative publicity and mitigate the impact on their stock price and investor confidence.
• Company’s Response and Transparency: The company’s response to securities litigataino and its level of transparency in communicating with investors can influence the extent of damage to its reputation and investor confidence.
• Overall Market Conditions: The broader market environment and investor sentiment can also play a role in shaping the market’s reaction to a lawsuit and its impact on a company’s stock price.

Examples:

• Volkswagen Emissions Scandal: Negative publicity surrounding Volkswagen’s emissions scandal led to a sharp decline in its stock price and eroded investor confidence and reputational damages.
• United Airlines Passenger Removal Incident: A video of a passenger being forcibly removed from a United Airlines flight went viral, leading to public outrage and a decline in the company’s reputation and stock price.
• Wells Fargo Account Fraud Scandal: Negative publicity surrounding Wells Fargo’s account fraud scandal damaged its reputation, led to financial penalties, and negatively impacted its stock price.

Visit Our Extensive Investor Hub: Learning for Informed Investors 

‘