Securities & Exchange Commission v. CR Intrinsic Investors, LLC

164 F. Supp. 3d 433, 2016 WL 639069, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15730
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 4, 2016
Docket12 Civ. 8466 (VM)
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 164 F. Supp. 3d 433 (Securities & Exchange Commission v. CR Intrinsic Investors, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Securities & Exchange Commission v. CR Intrinsic Investors, LLC, 164 F. Supp. 3d 433, 2016 WL 639069, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15730 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.

By Order dated January 26, 2015, the Court granted the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Motion to Establish a Fair Fund for Investor Victims (“Fair Fund”) pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C. Section 7246(a). (Dkt. No. 84.) The Fair Fund comprises more than $600 million in disgorged funds and civil penalties paid by defendant CR Intrinsic Investors, LLC and relief defendants CR Intrinsic Investments, LLC, S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, S.A.C. Capital Associates, LLC, S.A.C. International Equities, LLC, and S.A.C. Select Fund, LLC (collectively with CR Intrinsic Investors, “Defendants”) pursuant to a settlement of claims against Defendants for insider trading in securities of Elan Corporation pic (“Elan”) and Wyeth. The Court appointed Garden City Group, LLC as Distribution Agent to consult with the SEC and oversee the administration of the distribution of the Fair Fund, which retained an economic expert to develop a methodology for distributing the Fair Fund to injured investors. (Dkt. No. 94.)

The SEC subsequently submitted a proposed distribution plan (“Distribution Plan” or “Plan”) and corresponding Motion for an Order Approving a Distribution Plan for the CR Intrinsic Fair Fund (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 102.) The Court approved a schedule for comments on the Distribution Plan from interested parties. (Dkt. No. 105.) The Court received written. objections to certain aspects of the Distribution Plan from: 1) Simran Investment Group, LLC (Dkt. No. 107); 2) lead plaintiffs in the pending class action brought by Wyeth investors (Dkt. No. 108); 3) lead plaintiffs in the pending class action brought by Elan investors (Dkt. No. 109); 4) Defendants (Dkt. No. Ill); 5) Pfizer, Inc. (Dkt. No. 112); and 6) Robert L. Bierman (Dkt. No. 115)(collectively “Commenters”).

The Commenters objected principally to the following provisions: 1) the recoveries for Elan investors and Wyeth investors were pooled in a single fund according to the “Integrated Method” used by the SEC’s economic expert; 2) Elan common stock and Wyeth options, types of securities in which Defendants did not trade, were included as eligible securities for purposes of recovery; 3) the Plan provided for an automatic dollar-by-dollar set-off of any amount recovered from an outside source, [435]*435including class action recoveries; 4) the Plan included investors who traded after 4 p.m. on July 29, 2008; 5) the Plan omitted a prior stipulation regarding post-distribution procedures; 6) the Plan was unclear as to whether claimants receive prejudgment interest; and 7) the Plan omitted deadlines for filing of a motion to disburse and for-the distribution agent’s report.

After receipt of the foregoing comments, the SEC submitted a revised Distribution Plan (“Amended Distribution Plan”) incorporating five of the proposed revisions and rejecting two others. (Dkt. No. 116.) Specifically, the Amended Distribution Plan reduces the total eligible loss amount by the amount of compensation received by another source; excludes after-hours traders on July 29, 2008; incorporates the stipulation regarding post-distribution procedures; clarifies that claimants receive prejudgment interest; and specifies deadlines for filing a motion to disburse and for the distribution agent’s final report. The Amended Distribution Plan maintains the pooling of Elan and Wyeth investor recoveries and continues to include types of Elan and Wyeth securities not traded by Defendants. (Dkt. No. 116, Ex. 1.)

The SEC explained its proposal to integrate the Wyeth and Elan recoveries into one recovery fund, noting that the purpose of the Fair Fund is to provide an equitable distribution to all investors harmed during the period of illegal trading, not to compensate claimants in proportion to Defendants’ wrongly-gained profits in each company. (Dkt. No. 116 at 9-10.) The SEC’s economic expert states that the integrated method “has the economic benefit of treating all claimants equally.” (Dkt. No. 116, Ex. 2 at 5.) The SEC further explained that it proposed including Elan common stock and Wyeth options holders in the Fair Fund distribution because it would be “arbitrary and unreasonable” to include investors trading Elan options but exclude investors trading Wyeth options when both were harmed by Defendants’ nondisclosure, merely because Defendants traded in one type of security but not the other. (Dkt. No. 116 at 11-14.)

The standard , of review for a proposed Fair Fund distribution plan is whether the fund distribution plan “fairly and reasonably distributed the limited Fair Fund proceeds among the potential claimants.” Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of WorldCom, Inc. v. S.E.C., 467 F.3d 73, 85 (2d Cir.2006); see also SEC v. Wang, 944 F.2d 80, 85 (2d Cir.1991)(“[O]nce the district court satisfies itself that the distribution of proceeds in a proposed SEC disgorgement plan is fair and reasonable, its review is at an end.”).

As the SEC notes in its briefing, “nearly every plan to distribute funds obtained in an [SEC] enforcement action requires choices to be made regarding the allocation of funds between and among potential claimants within the parameters of the amounts recovered.” (Dkt. No. 116 at 4.) The Second Circuit has recognized that disgorgement is an equitable remedy and that unlike damages, “it is a method of forcing a defendant to give up the amount by which he was unjustly enriched.” Wang, 944 F.2d at 85 (quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Commonwealth Chem. Sec., Inc., 574 F.2d 90, 102 (2d Cir.1978)); see also Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Tome, 833 F.2d 1086, 1096 (2d Cir.1987).

The Amended Distribution Plan was drafted with the goal of creating a fair distribution to all investors harmed during the period of illegal trading by the inflation in Elan and Wyeth securities attributed to Defendants’ undisclosed information. After notice to interested parties and a period of comment, the SEC considered the objections to the Plan and the [436]*436majority of the comments and objections were incorporated into the Amended Distribution Plan. As to the several provisions that the SEC has declined to amend, the SEC provides a reasonable and detailed justification for doing so in the interest of prioritizing equitable distribution to injured investors. In particular, it is fair and reasonable that the available funds be distributed not in proportion to Defendants’ gains in trading for each company, but relative to the total losses to investors from the withholding of non-public information.

Having considered Plaintiffs Motion, the Memorandum of Law in Support, the various objections expressed by the Commen-ters, and the Amended Distribution Plan, the Court grants the Motion and approves in its entirety the Amended Distribution Plan attached hereto.

ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Motion to Approve Distribution Plan (Dkt. No. 102) is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the amended Distribution Plan attached hereto (Dkt. No. 116, Ex.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 F. Supp. 3d 433, 2016 WL 639069, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/securities-exchange-commission-v-cr-intrinsic-investors-llc-nysd-2016.