Client Results, Press Releases

Orrick Secures Precedent-Setting Ninth Circuit Victory for Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley


San Francisco - Orrick’s Securities Litigation Team secured a victory in the Ninth Circuit for clients Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley in a precedent setting case that has significantly raised the pleading bar in Section 11 cases under the 1933 Securities Act. On January 2, 2013, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Century Aluminum, and its underwriters Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley, issued false and misleading statements in connection with a secondary offering. Century also restated its financial statements in a manner the company claimed was not material because of a lack of any impact on the company’s bottom line. The crux of the court’s decision, however, did not concern the merits but instead dramatically raised the bar for pleading the tracing element in Section 11 cases alleging aftermarket purchases. This decision will likely set in motion a sea change in the Ninth Circuit that will make it virtually impossible in most instances for a plaintiff alleging Section 11 violations based solely on aftermarket purchases to survive beyond the pleading stage.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the effect of the pleading requirements set forth in the Supreme Court’s Twombly and Iqbal decisions made it no longer sufficient for a plaintiff to make bare-bones allegations that aftermarket shares could be "traced" back to a secondary offering. Instead, the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating that his or her tracing allegations are "plausible on its face."

The Ninth Circuit stated that in order to satisfy the plausibility requirement it is not enough for a plaintiff to plead facts showing that the shares could have come from the secondary offering. Rather, a plaintiff must plead facts that tend to exclude the possibility that the shares came from any offering prior to the secondary offering – which in most instances is a Herculean task. Significantly, the court stated that given these tough new pleading requirements "aftermarket purchasers usually will not be able to trace their shares back to a particular offering."

Defendants in Section 11 cases in the Ninth Circuit will now have a powerful new weapon that will enable most cases alleging only aftermarket purchases to be dismissed at the pleading stage.

The Orrick team was led by San Francisco securities litigation partner Robert Varian and included San Francisco of counsel Stephen Knaster and San Francisco managing associate Lily Becker.

About Orrick

Orrick is a global law firm with a particular focus on serving companies in the technology, energy and financial sectors. Founded in San Francisco and celebrating its 150th anniversary in 2013, Orrick is recognized by Law360 as one of the "Global 20" leading firms. The firm offers clients a distinctive combination of local insight and consistent global quality across 25 offices. Orrick lawyers are known for delivering commercially oriented advice on sophisticated transactions and have an extraordinary record of wins in high-stakes disputes. Chambers Global cites Orrick for leadership across 39 practice areas and recognizes 86 Orrick lawyers worldwide as leading practitioners. Selected by Financial Times as one of the most innovative U.S. law firms for the second consecutive year, Orrick is commended for innovation in both client advice and the business of law. Collaboration – one of the firm’s core values – defines the firm's relationships with its clients, among its lawyers and staff, and with its communities.


For more information, please contact us by e-mail or by phone: Ashley Laputka at (415) 773-5725 in San Francisco or Adi Weisman at (212) 506-5122 in New York.

Please do not include any confidential, secret or otherwise sensitive information concerning any potential or actual legal matter in this e-mail message. Unsolicited e-mails do not create an attorney-client relationship and confidential or secret information included in such e-mails cannot be protected from disclosure. Orrick does not have a duty or a legal obligation to keep confidential any information that you provide to us. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

By clicking "OK" below, you understand and agree that Orrick will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.