📅 00/00/000000:00:00

As the market evolves, new legal matters in new areas will arise and require an understanding of the numerous dynamic and interrelated facets of securities lending.

Types of securities lending litigation cases

As a result of the complexity of securities lending transactions and processes involving many different parties, the practice has led to a broad range of types of litigation. This section describes three types of cases relevant to institutional lenders and their agents: unsuitable investments, inappropriate fees and dividend arbitrage (also referred to as “yield enhancement”). We also describe some analyses that experts might conduct.

Unsuitable Investments in Reinvested Collateral

In unsuitability cases, plaintiffs often allege that the agents made inappropriate investments from the cash collateral generated in an SLP. These cases fall into two general types:

  1. The plaintiffs allege that the securities purchased violated the investment guidelines.
  2. The plaintiffs allege that even if the securities did not strictly violate the investment guidelines, they violated the objective of preserving principal, one common objective of the guidelines.

Claims of violation of the Investment Guidelines have tended to be less common. An example of such a case occurs when plaintiffs allege that the purchase of a particular security violated the provision of the guidelines requiring that a domestic U.S. company must issue any securities purchased under the SBL program.

Plaintiffs typically argue that a foreign entity issued the U.S. security. Defendants commonly argue that the security had a U.S. issuer and that reputable sources like Bloomberg treated the securities as having U.S. issuers. Another example occurs when plaintiffs allege that securities with stated maturities of several years violate the guidelines even when the effective maturity—measured by the reset date for the interest rate—is far shorter.

Following the financial crisis of 2008, when collateral investment portfolios suffered losses, the more frequent allegation has claimed that investments were unsuitable for an SLP (even if permitted by the Guidelines) or that the agent should have sold the securities as the financial crisis worsened. Common plaintiff allegations of failure to preserve principal include the following:

For their part, defendants commonly respond with the following:

  1. The investments were suitable under the Guidelines and the lender (plaintiff) set the Guidelines.
  2. The agent could not reasonably have foreseen the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
  3. The agent made an appropriate decision not to sell the securities for a realized loss in the expectation that the security would mature at par and pay off fully.
  4. The investments were highly rated and historical defaults associated with such highly rated securities are very low (a fraction of one percent or less).
  5. Many other conservative investors, such as money market funds and local government investment pools, purchased the same securities (e.g., Lehman Brothers notes).
  6. Plaintiffs and their consultants had access to detailed reports, were sophisticated entities themselves and should have monitored their portfolios.
  7. One should view the complained-of securities in the overall context of the collateral reinvestment portfolio and the SLP as a whole.
  8. The detailed descriptions of permitted investments specify what is suitable for the agent to purchase and that the plaintiffs are cherry-picking securities, with the benefit of hindsight, that had losses.

Experts might conduct one or more of the following analyses, depending on the facts and circumstances:

Improper and Excessive Fees

In another type of lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that lending agents either charged too high a fee and/or had an incentive to take excessive risks in the collateral investment portfolio because they shared in any income (receiving a percentage of the lending fee) but not in any principal losses.

Defendants commonly make several arguments in response:

Plaintiffs also sometimes allege improper fees in connection with allegations of unsuitability.

Experts might conduct one or more of the following analyses:

Additional Issues Related to Class Certification

Many of the securities lending issues described in this article are even more relevant in a class certification context. When multiple plaintiffs band together to sue a defendant, they must seek permission from the court to do so as a class. For example, pension plans may band together to sue a defendant because they believe they have similar claims. To be certified as a class, plaintiffs must meet all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and must satisfy one of three subsections of Rule 23(b).24 In federal class actions primarily seeking damages, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the class satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) predominance criterion, which requires that common questions of law and fact predominate over any individual questions.

One difference between securities lending class actions and other securities class action cases relates to the element of reliance. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 23 (b) (3) state: “a fraud case may be unsuited for treatment as a class action if there was material variation in the representations made or in the kinds or degrees of reliance by the persons to whom they were addressed.”25 In a typical securities class action, the court can presume reliance on alleged misrepresentation if a security at issue trades in an efficient market. An efficient market incorporates all public information, including alleged misrepresentations, into security prices in a timely fashion. Such a presumption, however, does not apply in a securities lending class action and plaintiffs must affirmatively demonstrate that all class members received either identical or substantively similar representations on which the class members similarly relied and thereby suffered injury.

In addition, in its Comcast decision, the Supreme Court held that in order to establish predominance under Rule 23(b)(3), plaintiffs must offer a damages method tied to their theory of liability. How much this has changed class certification opinions is open to dispute: some legal observers claim it has had little effect on class certification, but some district courts have applied Comcast to deny class certification.

Plaintiffs and defendants typically dispute whether the reliance and damages requirements raise important questions in cases involving the suitability of investments in securities lending. The plaintiffs’ position is relatively simple: they believe they do not. According to plaintiffs, the unsuitability of an investment for an SLP (due to the nature of securities lending as a relatively conservative investment) is a common question applicable to all putative class members. Defendants argue the opposite and desire to make suitability into an individualized issue. Defendants argue that an appropriate damages theory— one that matches the theory of liability and contains only members who have sustained injury, among other things—cannot be quantified at the class certification stage. In terms of suitability, defendants often argue that suitability for one investor does not necessarily imply suitability for another. Consider these factors:

In terms of damages, a defendant might argue that plaintiffs must specify their damages theory and that it must match their liability theory. For example, if a plaintiff alleges that the agent improperly purchased broad classes of securities, defendants might argue that the plaintiff must specify what alternative portfolio of investments the agent should have purchased and then require plaintiff to explain how, for each lender, that alternative portfolio would have made sense in terms of the required returns that investor desired.

Securities Lending and Dividend Arbitrage

With dividend arbitrage (yield enhancement) transactions, taxpayers temporarily lend securities to parties in lower tax and/or withholding tax jurisdictions across the record date for dividend payments. These parties then return the securities after dividends are paid. The lender, borrower and intermediary bank share the tax savings. Dividend arbitrage transactions can take a variety of forms, often involving stock loans and/or equity swaps. Entities use these across international borders.

Numerous variations on the basic structure of a dividend arbitrage transaction exist, some extremely complex. A proper analysis of any particular transaction structure usually requires an in-depth understanding of the transaction.

The Internal Revenue Service, financial regulators and their counterparts in foreign countries frown on purely tax motivated transactions. Their challenges argue that such transactions entail little to no risk and that the parties would not have entered into these transactions in the absence of tax benefits. In other words, they argue that the transactions had no economic substance.

Taxpayers often argue that they complied with all statutes, that they acted for the benefit of their stakeholder-beneficiaries, that the transactions were profitable even without the tax benefits and that the transactions entailed significant risks. To show that the transactions were profitable in such securities lending cases, defendants often argue that the parties profitably used the loaned securities in other parts of their equities business because the parties could:

Defendants often argue that, besides the usual risks that accompany securities lending described in Section 30.2(b) (counterparty risk, liquidity risk or risk of recall, operational risk), they were exposed to numerous other risks inherent in equities finance operations, including:

📅 LAST UPDATED: 01/05/19 11:04:45 securities lending lending transactions lending processes yield enhancement excessive fees securities litigation litigation cases
GENERAL WARNINGS
⚖ Notwithstanding that, pursuant to SEC § 15(d)(1), our securities analysts are independent and qualified, and pursuant to SEC § 15(d)(2), our research reports are in compliance with all applicable laws, we neither endorse our reports, nor do we recommend any decision or action made upon any and all information therein, because said information may be biased, extractive, inadvertently false or inaccurate, among many other existing flaws and risks, and our Entity does not provide any liability to any person or entity under no circumstances.
⚖ Notwithstanding that our equity securities gradings are in accordance with securities standards and we are authorized and qualified to grade equities and derivatives thereof and provide opinions and recommendations thereto, any and all aforesaid information are solely informational, non-advisory and non-recommendatory at all places and times, even if inadvertently, explicitly or exactly mentioned, construed or written otherwise in any other time, place or document, whether directly or indirectly pertained to our Entity or our Services.
⚖ Notwithstanding that we regularly act to accurate and optimize all our near-real-time ("real-time") speculations, values, estimations and forecasts, at the present time, all our estimations and approximations are inaccurate, based upon limited and delayed 60-second or longer data from external sources, without any insurance or certification. All per second estimations are based on assumptive semi-stochastic calculations, which means that aforesaid near-real-time values are computed using random data in part and mathematical derivatives of untimely or timely financial and economic data in part, thereby and therefore unreliabilities and uncertainties therein are unlimited and may be unknown, making any and all information herein, hereof, hereto or herewith, substantially speculative, thereby an extreme risk of involuntarily deprival and dispossession of any materialistic or non-materialistic things, that a person or entity may possibly hold, exist in any and all actions pertained to said information.
⚖ This application prototype is in alpha development stage, and carries inconstancies and inaccuracies, among other flaws, which we very much appreciate it if you may provide views or feedbacks via emails, text/voice messages or mails, and our contact information is copied in the footer of this page.

⚖ DISCLAIMER

EVEN IF, IN OTHER TRANSACTIONS, TIMES AND PLACES, ANY OF THE FOLLOWINGS IS OR MAY BE OTHERWISE WRITTEN, SAID, PRESENTED, PERCEIVED, DEPICTED OR CONSTRUED, IT IS IMPORTANT TO PRIORLY NOTE TO THIS DISCLAIMER AT ANY AND ALL TIMES AND PLACES AND TRANSACTIONS AS THE PRIORITY REFERENCE AND THAT: (A) DEFINITIONS IN OUR BY-LAW APPLIES TO THIS ENTIRE DISCLAIMER; AND (B) ANY AND ALL INFORMATION, OBJECTS, AGREEMENTS OR SERVICES HEREOF, HEREIN, HERETO OR HEREWITH ARE NOT ENDORSED FOR ANY PERSON OR COMPANY, ARE OR MAY BE INADVERTENTLY FALSE, INFORMAL, INACCURATE, IMPRECISE, UNQUALIFIED, UNACCREDITED, UNCERTIFIED, UNRELIABLE, UNVERIFIED, UNINSURED AND BIASED, AMONG MANY OTHER FLAWS AND RISKS, AND ARE SOLELY FOR NON-RECOMMENDATORY, NON-ADVISORY INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES IN ANY AND ALL ASPECTS, AND NONE CONSTITUTES ANY ADVICE, BASELINE, COUNSELING, DIRECTION, GUIDANCE, GUIDELINE, RECOMMENDATION OR SUGGESTION, WHATSOEVER, AND NONE IS PROVIDED AS TO WHETHER ANY AND ALL INFORMATION, OBJECTS, AGREEMENTS OR INSTRUMENTS IS APPROPRIATE FOR ANY PERSON OR COMPANY; AND (C) BONDS, COMMODITIES, CONTRACTS, DEBENTURES, EQUITIES, EXCHANGES, FINANCING, FOREX, FUTURES, INSTRUMENTS, INVESTMENTS, LOANS, OPTIONS, STOCKS, SWAPS, TRADES OR ANY TRANSACTION CORRESPONDINGLY THEREOF CAN CARRY UNBEARABLE, HIGHLY SUBSTANTIAL AND EXTREMELY SPECULATIVE RISKS, AND MAY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CAUSE PERMANENT FAMILY, HEALTH, PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL, KNOWN OR UNKNOWN LOSSES AND DAMAGES, AMONG MANY OTHER HAZARDS; AND (D) UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, AICODY, ITS PAST, PRESENT OR POTENTIAL SUBSIDIARIES, PARENTS, CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, ADVERTISERS, AFFILIATES OR ANY PERTINENT PARTIES CORRESPONDINGLY THERETO ARE LIABLE FOR ANY AND ALL DIRECT OR INDIRECT COSTS, DAMAGES, EXPENSES, FEES, LOSSES, RISKS, OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF OR CORRESPONDINGLY THERETO THAT MAY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISE FROM OR ASSOCIATE TO ANY AND ALL INFORMATION, OBJECTS, AGREEMENTS OR SERVICES HEREOF, HEREIN, HERETO OR HEREWITH; (E) BY CONTINUATION OF EACH AND EVERY VISIT, YOU ASSERT, ATTEST AND TESTIFY THAT YOU AGREE WITH OUR DAILY AMENDED AND UPDATED BY-LAW, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, PRIVACY POLICY, COPYRIGHT POLICY, COOKIES POLICY, CYBER SECURITY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND RISK WARNINGS, WHICH ALTOGETHER CONSTITUTES A DAILY, PRELIMINARY AND TEMPORARY AGREEMENT ("PTA") BETWEEN YOU AND ENTITY; AND (F) WE USE COOKIES AND CORRESPONDINGLY SIMILAR TECHNOLOGIES TO UNDERSTAND HOW OUR SERVICES ARE BEING USED OR UTILIZED, AND TO PROVIDE THE BEST ONLINE PRACTICES PRACTICABLE TO OUR CLIENTS VIA TAILORING CONTENTS AND ADVERTISING, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT COOKIES POLICY.

© 2019 AICODY LC ⚖ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

🇺🇸 RISK WARNINGS ⚖ SAFETY 📝 SERVICES

× Aicody
📚 Basic Articles
💹 Stock Analytics
📊 Comparison Charts