By Mike Lange, Securities Litigation Counsel, Financial Recovery Technologies

“Cyan: a greenish-blue color …” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

On March 20, in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court unanimously held that securities class actions solely alleging claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) can be prosecuted in state rather than federal court. The decision is a rare but refreshing win for investor rights and, although narrow in applicability, will likely yield significant outcomes for institutional investors.

The Decision is Narrow in Application 
The decision offers a limited exception to the federal court mandate for securities class actions, applying only to complaints solely pleading securities claims under Section 11 or other provisions of the Securities Act in connection with company offerings. Most class actions allege fraud claims under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) for securities traded in the post-offering markets. Those cases must still be in federal court along with cases involving claims under both the Securities and Exchange Acts.

But It Will Likely Yield Significant Outcomes
According to Cornerstone Research, between 2012 and 2017, there was an average 126 company IPOs each year. To date, most solely section 11 cases have been filed in the California state courts. That Circuit was applying the Cyan logic before the Supreme Court decision, allowing cases filed in state court to remain there.

After Cyan, solely section 11 cases will likely be filed in other state courts as well, typically where the issuers involved are headquartered. If California offers any indication, we’re likely to see more settlements of these matters. In contrast to federal court treatment of these cases, California state courts are less likely to dismiss (19% vs. 25%) and more likely to let matters continue (33% vs. 19%). They’re more likely to settle as a result (35% vs. 25%).

More Claim Opportunities Will Create Challenges 
While more settlements mean more claim opportunities, institutional investors relying on in-house resources to prepare proof of claim forms will find monitoring for state court settlements challenging. Federal class action settlements can be tracked via third-party data feeds or via the Stanford University Securities Class Action Clearing House. Federal court pleadings can be easily obtained online using PACER, the federal court docket system. By contrast, state courts vary widely in their docket information available online, and most require pleadings to be retrieved in person. In sum, the Cyan decision should make all institutional investors happy except for their internal claim filing teams.

Related Information

• Law360, March 20, 2018: Justices Keep Securities Class Actions Alive In State Courts
• Law360, March 26, 2018: After Cyan: Creative Lawyering Can’t Displace Clear Statute

Learn More

To learn more about monitoring state court settlements, contact your FRT representative or email us at learnmore@frtservices.com.

About FRT

U.S. CLAIMS  I  GLOBAL GROUP LITIGATION  I  ANTITRUST  I  LITIGATION MONITORING  I  BUYOUTS

Founded in 2008, Financial Recovery Technologies (FRT) is a leading technology-based services firm that helps the investment community identify eligibility, file claims and collect funds made available in securities and other class action settlements. Offering the most comprehensive range of claim filing and monitoring services available, we provide best-in-class eligibility analysis, disbursement auditing and client reporting, and deliver the highest level of accuracy, accountability and transparency available. For more information, go to www.frtservices.com.

• Follow us on Twitter: @FRTServices
• Follow us on LinkedIn: Financial Recovery Technologies
• Email us: learnmore@frtservices.com

This communication and the content found by following any link herein are being provided to you by Financial Recovery Technologies (FRT) for informational purposes only and does not constitute advice. All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but FRT makes no representation or warranty with respect to this communication or such content and expressly disclaims any implied warranty under law. Opinions expressed in this communication may change without prior notice. Firms should always seek legal and financial advice specific to their unique situation and objectives.