Introduction to the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Litigation

The Securities Act of 1933, often referred to as the “truth in securities” law, was enacted in the wake of the Great Depression to restore investor confidence by ensuring greater transparency in financial statements and protecting investors against fraud. This landmark legislation serves as one of the cornerstones of federal securities regulation in the United States.

Its primary objectives are to require that investors receive significant information regarding securities being offered for public sale, and to prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities. The act mandates that securities offered to the public must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), ensuring that pertinent information regarding the issuer’s financial condition and the specifics of the securities is disclosed.

• Investor protections: Investor protections form a critical component of the Securities Act of 1933. These protections are designed to provide a safety net for investors by ensuring they have access to all relevant information before making investment decisions. This transparency aims to reduce the risk of fraud and misrepresentation.

• Registration Process: The registration process involves a detailed disclosure of financial statements, management background, and any potential risks associated with the investment, which are meticulously reviewed by the SEC. By mandating such comprehensive disclosure, the act helps investors make more informed decisions, thus fostering market integrity and reliability.

• Securities Litigation: Securities litigation arises when there is non-compliance with the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 or when there is alleged misconduct in connection with securities transactions. This litigation process serves as a mechanism for investors to seek redress and holds entities accountable for fraudulent practices.

Investors who believe they have been wronged can file securities class actions under this act to claim compensation for their losses. The judicial system, through securities litigation, enforces compliance with disclosure requirements and penalizes those who attempt to defraud investors. This not only provides direct remedies for affected investors but also acts as a deterrent against future violations.

In conclusion, the Securities Act of 1933 plays an indispensable role in maintaining fair and efficient markets by establishing stringent investor protections and a robust framework for securities litigation. By mandating full disclosure and enabling legal recourse for aggrieved investors, it upholds the principles of transparency and accountability in financial markets.

For investors navigating the complexities of securities investments, understanding the provisions of this act and the recourse available through securities litigation is crucial for safeguarding their interests and maintaining confidence in market integrity.

Overview of the Securities Act of 1933

• Historical Context: Enacted in response to the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression.

• Primary Goal: To restore investor confidence by ensuring greater transparency and preventing fraud in the securities market.

• Fundamental Principle: Mandates full and fair disclosure from companies offering securities to the public. The core philosophy is “sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

• Registration Requirement: Companies must register securities offerings with the newly created SEC before public sale.

• Core Disclosure Document (Prospectus):

• • Purpose: Provides potential investors with essential information about the company’s business, finances, risks, and management.

• • • Availability: Made public and accessible to all potential investors.

• Scope: Primarily regulates the primary market, which involves the initial offer and sale of securities by issuers. Exemptions exist for certain types of securities and transactions.

• Foundational Legislation: Laid the groundwork for modern U.S. securities regulation, notably preceding the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which created the SEC.

Key Provisions of the Securities Act of 1933

• Registration Requirement:

• • Mandate: Issuers must file a detailed registration statement with the SEC before offering or selling securities to the public.

• • Disclosure: The statement includes a prospectus and other information to ensure transparency.

• Anti-Fraud Provisions:

• • Prohibition: Makes it illegal to make material misstatements or omissions in the offer or sale of securities.
  • Deterrent: A powerful tool against fraudulent activities.

• Civil Liabilities (Sections 11 & 12):

• • Investor Recourse: If an investor suffers losses due to materially false or misleading registration statements, they have the right to sue.
• • Accountability: Imposes a high standard of liability on issuers, underwriters, and other involved parties to ensure diligence and ethical conduct.

• Exemptions from Registration:

• • Reduced Burden: Not all offerings require full registration. Common exemptions include:

• • • Private offerings: Sales to a limited number of sophisticated investors.

• • • Limited size offerings: Small-scale offerings (e.g., crowdfunding under the JOBS Act).

• • • Intrastate offerings: Offerings confined to a single state.

• Due Diligence: The strict liability provisions in the Act incentivize underwriters and issuers to conduct extensive “due diligence” to ensure all disclosures are accurate and complete.

Relevant Additions

• Comparison to “Blue Sky” Laws: The 1933 Act differs from earlier state “blue sky” laws. While blue sky laws often imposed a “merit review” (assessing the quality of an investment), the 1933 Act’s philosophy is purely one of disclosure. It assumes that with full information, investors can make their own informed decisions.

• Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (1995): This act added Section 27 to the 1933 Act, raising the pleading standards for securities fraud litigation.

• JOBS Act (2012): The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act was passed to help smaller companies raise capital by introducing exemptions from the 1933 Act’s registration requirements, such as those related to crowdfunding. 

Importance of the Securities Act of 1933 for Investors

• Enables informed decision-making: By mandating the registration of public offerings and the distribution of a prospectus, the Act provides investors with essential details about the security, the company’s financial status, and associated risks. This equips investors to make well-informed decisions rather than relying on guesswork or misleading information.

• Fosters market confidence: The Act’s framework, established in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash, aimed to restore investor trust in the financial system. By promoting accuracy and preventing fraud, it helps create fair and efficient capital markets where investors believe they have a level playing field.

• Provides legal recourse: A cornerstone of the Act is its provisions for civil liabilities, allowing investors to sue if they suffer losses due to false or misleading statements or omissions in a registration statement. Sections 11 and 12, in particular, provide powerful tools for investors to hold issuers, underwriters, and other parties accountable, which serves as a deterrent against fraudulent behavior. 

Significant Recoveries in Securities Class Action Lawsuits

Top 25 Largest Securities Class Action Settlements

RANK	COMPANY NAME	COURT	SETTLEMENT YEAR	TOTAL SETTLEMENT ABOUT
1	Enron Corp.	S.D. Tex.	2010	$7,242,000,000
2	WorldCom, Inc	S.D.N.Y.	2012	$6,194,100,714
3	Cendant Corp	D. N.J	2000	$3,319,350,000
4	Tyco International, Ltd.	D. N.H.	2007	$3,200,000,000
5	Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras	S.D.N.Y.	2018	$3,000,000,000
6	AOL Time Warner, Inc	S.D.N.Y.	2006	$2,500,000,000
7	Bank of America Corporation	S.D.N.Y.	2013	$2,425,000,000
8	Household International, Inc.	N.D. Ill.	2016	$1,575,000,000
9	Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.	D. N.J.	2021	$1,210,000,000
10	Nortel Networks Corp	S.D.N.Y.	2006	$1,142,775,308
11	Royal Ahold, N.V.	D. Md.	2006	$1,100,000,000
12	Nortel Networks Corp. (II)	S.D.N.Y.	2006	$1,074,265,298
13	Merck & Co., Inc.	D. N.J.	2016	$1,062,000,000
14	McKesson HBOC Inc	N.D. Cal.	2013	$1,052,000,000
15	American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.	S.D.N.Y.	2020	$1,025,000,000
16	American International Group, Inc.	S.D.N.Y.	2013	$1,009,500,000
17	American International Group, Inc.	S.D.N.Y.	2015	$970,500,000
18	UnitedHealth Group, Inc	D. Minn.	2009	$925,500,000
19	HealthSouth Corp.	N.D. Ala	2010	$804,500,000
20	Xerox Corp.	D. Conn.	2009	$750,000,000
21	Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.	S.D.N.Y.	2014	$735,218,000
22	Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.	S.D.N.Y.	2013	$730,000,000
23	Lucent Technologies, Inc.	D. N.J	2003	$667,000,000
24	Wachovia Preferred Securities and Bond/Notes	S.D.N.Y.	2011	$627,000,000
25	Countrywide Financial Corp.	C.D. Cal.	2011	$624,000,000

Derivative Lawsuits:

• • Brought on Behalf of the Company: A derivative lawsuit is a legal action brought by a shareholder on behalf of the company against third parties, often including the company’s executives or directors, for harm to the company. This type of lawsuit is predicated on the belief that the company’s management has failed to address a wrong that has been inflicted upon the corporation, thereby causing damage to its financial health and overall well-being.
  • Shareholder Steps Into Companies Shoes: The shareholder steps into the shoes of the company to seek redress for this harm, aiming to hold those responsible accountable and to recover losses incurred due to their actions or negligence.
  • Motivation: The primary motivation behind derivative lawsuits is to protect the interests of the company and, by extension, its shareholders. When executives or directors engage in activities that result in harm to the company, such as fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or gross mismanagement, it is essential that these issues are addressed to prevent further damage and to ensure the company’s long-term success. Derivative lawsuits serve as a mechanism for shareholders to take action when they believe that the company’s leadership has failed in their duties, thereby safeguarding the corporation’s assets and reputation.
  • Demand Prerequsite: Derivative lawsuits can be complex and challenging, requiring shareholders to demonstrate that they have made sufficient attempts to resolve the issue internally before resorting to legal action. This often involves showing that they have requested the board of directors to take action and that the board has either refused or failed to respond. appropriately.
  • Accountability: By pursuing a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the company, shareholders play a crucial role in holding corporate leaders accountable and promoting transparency and integrity within the organization.

• Regulatory Enforcement Actions:

• • Compliance: Regulatory enforcement actions are critical mechanisms employed by regulatory bodies to ensure compliance with laws and regulations that govern financial markets and various industries.
  • Deferrent: These actions serve as a deterrent against malpractices and protect the integrity of markets, thereby providing investor protections and maintaining public trust. Regulatory bodies such as the SEC in the United States, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the United Kingdom, and similar institutions worldwide, play a pivotal role in monitoring market activities and enforcing rules.
  • Investor Protections: By initiating investigations and enforcement actions and imposing penalties on entities that violate regulations, these bodies uphold investor protections and promote fair trading practices.
  • Effectiveness: The effectiveness of regulatory enforcement actions hinges on the ability of regulatory bodies to swiftly identify and address infractions. This necessitates a robust framework for surveillance and data analysis, which allows for timely detection of irregularities. When regulatory bodies are vigilant and proactive, they can prevent small issues from escalating into major crises that could undermine market stability.
  • Compliance: Moreover, transparent communication about enforcement actions reinforces the message that compliance is non-negotiable, thereby encouraging organizations to adhere to best practices.
  • Investor protections: Investor protections are at the heart of regulatory enforcement actions. By holding companies accountable for misconduct, regulatory bodies ensure that investors are not subjected to fraudulent schemes or misleading information that could result in significant financial losses.
  • Level Playing Field: Reglatory providices through enforcement actions server as protections  to creating a level playing field where all market participants can operate with confidence in the fairness of the system. In this way, regulatory enforcement actions contribute not only to the protection of individual investors but also to the overall health and efficiency of financial markets.

Impact Beyond Individual Cases

• Promotes Deterrence: Serves as a powerful deterrent against future fraud, encouraging companies to maintain higher standards of disclosure and accountability.

• Drives Regulatory Reform: Major litigation cases often lead to new regulations or stricter oversight by regulatory bodies.

• Influences Corporate Governance: Helps shape corporate governance practices by holding executives and boards accountable for their actions.

Requirements for Effective Litigation

• Experienced Knowledge: Requires legal professionals with a deep understanding of complex statutes, case law, financial instruments, and market dynamics.

• Collaboration with Experts: Often involves collaboration with experts in accounting, economics, and finance to build a compelling case.

Upholding Investor Trust

• Crucial Role: Securities litigation plays a vital role in upholding investor protections and ensuring fair, transparent, and properly functioning financial markets.

• Safeguards Interests: As markets evolve, robust litigation mechanisms remain paramount for safeguarding investor protections and maintaining confidence in the global financial system.

Other Non-Monetary Remedies Sought in Securities Class Actions

Enhancing board independence and oversight

• Separating CEO and Chair roles: To prevent conflicts of interest and enhance accountability, lead plaintiffs often push for a division of leadership positions, ensuring that the chief executive officer and the board chairman are different people.
• Appointing independent directors: Settlements may require the appointment of new, independent directors to key committees, such as the audit, nominating, and compensation committees. These new directors can bring fresh perspectives and improve oversight and financial reporting.
• Requiring annual director elections: Mandating annual elections for all directors, rather than a staggered board, increases the board’s accountability to shareholders.

Improving financial and internal controls

• Strengthening internal financial controls: Following accounting fraud, lead plaintiffs may demand a review and overhaul of a company’s internal financial reporting and accounting systems. This can involve implementing stronger safeguards to prevent future misconduct.
• Using independent monitors: In cases of significant misconduct, the court may authorize a corporate monitor to oversee and ensure that the company complies with the terms of the settlement and implements the agreed-upon reforms.

Expanding shareholder rights and empowerment

• Adopting “clawback” policies: These policies require executives to return incentive-based compensation based on misreported financial data that is later restated. This holds management accountable for fraudulent financial reporting.
• Reforming executive compensation: Non-monetary remedies can include restructuring executive compensation packages to align management incentives with long-term shareholder interests.
• Facilitating shareholder nomination of directors: This can give shareholders a greater voice in selecting the board of directors by making the nomination process more accessible.

Addressing ethical and compliance failures

• Overhauling compliance programs: As seen in derivative litigation related to the Columbia/HCA scandal, institutional investors pushed for comprehensive reforms to the compliance program, including a review of ethics policies and enhanced whistleblower protections.
• Creating ethics oversight committees: A settlement may mandate the creation of new oversight committees specifically focused on ethical conduct, training, and the investigation of potential wrongdoing.

How the Securities Act of 1933 Protects Investors

• Ensures Full and Fair Disclosure:

• • Transparency: At its core, the Act mandates that companies provide prospective investors with accurate and essential financial and operational information before a public offering.

• • Prospectus Requirement: This is achieved through a registration statement and a prospectus, a document that details the business, financial condition, management, and risks associated with the investment.

• Levels the Playing Field:

• • Standardized Information: By establishing a standardized framework, the Act ensures that all investors, regardless of their financial expertise, have access to the same level of information.

• • Empowers Informed Decisions: This transparency empowers investors to make informed judgments and assess risk based on reliable data, rather than on hearsay or speculation.

• Imposes Civil Liabilities:

• • Investor Recourse: The Act provides investors with legal recourse, allowing them to sue for losses if they can prove a registration statement contained materially false or misleading information.

• • Accountability: This right to sue holds issuers, underwriters, and others involved in the offering accountable for material misstatements o romissions, promoting ethical conduct.

• Strengthens Market Integrity:

• • Deters Fraud: The threat of civil liability is a powerful deterrent against fraudulent activities, encouraging companies to be meticulous in their disclosures.

• • Fosters Confidence: By promoting a system of transparency and accountability, the Act fosters investor confidence and trust in the market, encouraging capital formation.

• Embraces “Truth in Securities” Philosophy:

• • Disclosure, Not Merit: The Act is often called the “Truth in Securities” law because its philosophy is disclosure-based, not merit-based. The SEC ensures information is accurate but does not guarantee the investment is “good”.

• • Empowers Investor Judgment: This empowers investors to make their own informed judgments rather than relying on a government guarantee.

• Strict Liability for Issuers (Section 11):

• • High Standard: Issuers are held to a very high standard of “strict liability” for material misstatements or omissions in a registration statement.

• • No Reliance Required: Investors suing the issuer under Section 11 often do not need to prove they directly relied on the misleading statement, only that they purchased the security and suffered losses.

• The Due Diligence Defense:

• • Protecting Intermediaries: While issuers face strict liability, other parties like underwriters and accountants can use a “due diligence” defense, arguing they had reasonable grounds to believe the statements were accurate. This encourages thorough investigation by all parties involved. 

Section 11: Strict Liability for Issuers, Key Case Law, and Pleading Standards

Standard of liability for issuers

• Strict Liability: Under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, issuers (the company issuing the securities) face a strict standard of liability for any material misstatements or omissions in their registration statements.

• No Due Diligence Defense: Unlike other defendants (e.g., underwriters, directors), issuers cannot assert a “due diligence” defense to avoid liability. The only defenses available to an issuer are statutory, such as proving the plaintiff knew about the inaccuracies, the misstatement was not material, or the stock’s price drop was caused by factors other than the misstatement.

• No Scienter Required: A plaintiff does not need to prove that the issuer intended to deceive or acted with a fraudulent state of mind. Liability is imposed regardless of whether the misstatement was intentional or merely negligent.

Key case law

• Escott v. BarChris Construction Corp. (1968): This landmark case firmly established the high burden of due diligence required for non-issuer defendants in Section 11 claims.

• • Holding: The court found material misstatements and omissions in the registration statement of BarChris Construction and held various defendants, including outside directors and underwriters, liable. While not directly about the issuer’s strict liability, it set the precedent that all parties involved in a registered offering have a significant responsibility to ensure accuracy.

• Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston (1983): The Supreme Court affirmed the legislative intent behind Section 11 was to impose a “stringent standard of liability” on parties involved in a registered offering to assure compliance with disclosure provisions.

• In re NationsMart Corp. (1997): This case is often cited to confirm the principle that issuers are strictly liable for misstatements in the registration statement and that Section 11 liability is “virtually absolute” for them.

• Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund (2015): The Supreme Court clarified the standard for liability based on statements of opinion.

• • Holding: An issuer is not liable under Section 11 merely because a statement of opinion turns out to be incorrect. However, an issuer can be liable for omitting material facts that contradict or undermine the basis for that opinion, if those omissions would make the statement misleading to a reasonable investor.

Pleading standards

• Traceability (Standing): A plaintiff must prove they purchased securities that are traceable to the allegedly misleading registration statement. This can be a challenge in modern electronic markets with fungible securities.

• • Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani (2023): The Supreme Court confirmed that plaintiffs must plead and prove their shares are traceable to the specific registration statement containing the alleged falsehoods, clarifying the strict traceability requirement.

• Materiality: The plaintiff must allege that the misstatement or omission was “material,” meaning a reasonable investor would have considered it significant in making an investment decision.

• No Pleading of Scienter or Fraud: Since Section 11 is a strict liability statute, plaintiffs do not need to plead or prove the defendants’ fraudulent intent. This contrasts with Section 10(b) claims, which require pleading “scienter.”

• Interaction with Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA):

• • The PSLRA generally heightened pleading standards for securities fraud claims. While Section 11 claims don’t require pleading fraud, the PSLRA did introduce some procedural changes, such as modifying the standard for forward-looking statements.

• • The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo (2005), which requires pleading “loss causation” (that the alleged misconduct, not other market factors, caused the loss), applies to Section 10(b) claims. In a Section 11 case, the burden is reversed, and defendants must prove that the losses were not caused by the misstatement (the “negative causation” defense). 

Conclusion and Future Outlook for Investors

The Securities Act of 1933 remains a cornerstone of investor protection, providing a legal framework that promotes transparency, accountability, and fairness in the securities market. As investors navigate the complexities of securities litigation, understanding the key provisions of the 1933 Act and the legal remedies available is essential for safeguarding their financial interests and seeking recourse in the event of wrongdoing.

Looking ahead, the future of securities litigation will likely be shaped by ongoing developments in technology, regulatory changes, and global economic trends. As the securities market continues to evolve, investors must remain vigilant and informed, adapting to new challenges and opportunities. By staying abreast of legal and regulatory developments, investors can make informed decisions and confidently navigate the intricate world of securities.

Ultimately, the Securities Act of 1933, together with the broader regulatory framework, serves as a vital tool for protecting investors and maintaining the integrity of the capital markets. As we move forward, the principles of transparency, accountability, and investor protection will continue to guide the evolution of securities regulation and litigation, ensuring a fair and equitable marketplace for all investors.

Visit Our Extensive Investor Hub: Learning for Informed Investors