Petitioners, V
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 20-____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— BOFI HOLDING, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. HOUSTON MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES PENSION SYSTEM, Respondent. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ———— PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— POLLY TOWILL JOHN P. STIGI III JOHN M. LANDRY Counsel of Record SHEPPARD, MULLIN, SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street 1901 Avenue of the Stars 43d Floor 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (213) 620-1780 (310) 288-3700 [email protected] ESHEL BAR-ADON AXOS FINANCIAL, INC. 4350 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92122 (858) 350-6200 Counsel for Petitioners March 26, 2021 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), this Court recognized the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance for private rights of action brought by investors under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. The fraud-on-the-market presumption is predicated upon the “efficient capital markets hypothesis” (ECMH). The ECMH posits that the market price of a security trading in an efficient stock market reflects all publicly available information, including any misrepresentation, about the issuer of the securities and its business. In Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005), this Court held that in such fraud-on-the-market cases the element of loss causation requires more than a showing that the alleged misrepresentation inflated a security’s market price at the time of the investor’s purchase. An investor-plaintiff also must show that the misrepre- sentation caused the investor’s economic loss when the “truth beg[an] to leak out” publicly into the efficient market. The questions presented here are: 1. Whether disputed public allegations about an issuer or its business, without any additional cor- roborating disclosure or event, reveal to an efficient market the “truth” for purposes of establishing loss causation under Dura (as held by the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, in direct conflict with the Eleventh Circuit). 2. Whether allowing a plaintiff to show that a disclosure or event revealed the “truth” about the issuer or its business by pointing to the magnitude of the decline in the price of the issuer’s stock conflicts with Dura and misapplies Basic. (i) ii 3. Whether the Court should overrule Basic to the extent it recognizes the ECMH, as that economic theory sows confusion in the lower courts with respect to the proper analysis of loss causation. iii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners are BofI Holding, Inc. (now named Axos Financial, Inc.), Gregory Garrabrants, Andrew J. Micheletti, Paul H. Grinberg, Nicholas A. Mosich and James S. Argalas. Respondent is Houston Municipal Employees Pension System. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT BofI Holding, Inc. (now named Axos Financial, Inc.) has no parent corporation. BlackRock Inc. (a publicly held company) holds 10% or more of its stock. iv PROCEEDINGS BELOW United States District Court (S.D. Cal.): Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., Civ. No. 3:15-cv-02324- GPC-KSC, Civ. No. 3:15-cv-02486-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2016) In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. Nos. 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132574 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016) In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. Nos. 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79062 (S.D. Cal. May 23, 2017) In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. Nos. 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198153 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2017) In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. Nos. 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46694 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2018) United States Court of Appeals (9th Cir.): Houston Municipal Employees Pension System v. BofI Holding, Inc. (In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation), No. 18-55415, 977 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2020) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING .................... iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ..... iii PROCEEDINGS BELOW ................................... iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ vii OPINIONS BELOW ............................................ 1 JURISDICTION .................................................. 1 STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED ............ 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................ 6 I. Background ............................................... 6 II. Facts and Procedural History .................. 7 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .. 13 I. The Courts of Appeals are Divided Over Whether Public Allegations May, Without More, Reveal the “Truth” For Purposes of Establishing Loss Causation Under Dura ............................................... 13 II. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Conflicts With Dura and Misapplies Basic ............. 19 III. The Court Should Consider Overruling Basic .......................................................... 21 IV. The Questions Presented Are Important, and Now Is the Time to Decide Them ...... 28 CONCLUSION .................................................... 34 (v) vi TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued APPENDIX Page APPENDIX A: OPINION, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (October 8, 2020) ......... 1a APPENDIX B: ORDER GRANTING MOT- ION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, District Court of the Southern District of California (March 21, 2018) ........................... 36a APPENDIX C: ORDER, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (November 16, 2020) ... 73a vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) ................................... 22 Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) ................................... 22, 27 Arkansas Teacher Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., 955 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.), cert. granted, No. 20-222, ___ U.S. ___ (Dec. 11, 2020) ... 32 Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) ..................................passim Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975) ................................... 6, 28 Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) ................................... 22 Curry v. Yelp Inc., 875 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2017) ............. 11, 12, 16 Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005) ..................................passim Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57137 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2020) .......................... 9 Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02287-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. filed Oct. 13, 2015) ..................passim Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258 (2014) ..................................passim viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Houston Municipal Employees Pension System v. BofI Holding, Inc., 977 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2020) ....................passim In re Vivendi, S.A. Sec. Litig., 838 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016) ...................... 13 In re Williams Sec. Litig.-WCG Subclass, 558 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir. 2009) ................. 13 Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374 (1995) ................................... 22 Lloyd v. CVB Fin. Corp., 811 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2017) ................... 12 Loos v. Immersion Corp., 762 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2014) ............... 11, 12, 16 Meyer v. Greene, 710 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2013) ................passim Norfolk County Retirement Systems v. Community Health Systems, 877 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2017) ..................... 15 Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) ................................... 24 Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) ................................... 27 Puddu v. 6D Global Techs., Inc., 742 Fed. Appx. 553 (2d Cir. Aug. 2, 2018) .......................................................... 32 Santa Fe Indus., Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. 462 (1977) ................................... 31 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Sapssov v. Health Mgmt. Assoc., 608 Fed. Appx. 855 (11th Cir. 2015) .. 13, 14, 15 Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008) ................................... 27, 28 Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007) ................................... 30 Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) ........................ 27 Wochos v. Tesla, Inc., 985 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2021) ................... 19, 20 CONSTITUTION U.S. Const. amend. I .................................... 22 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1254(l) ........................................ 1 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737 ........passim 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) ...................................... 2, 6 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3) ............................. 8 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(b)(4) ............................. 1 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b) ............................. 2, 6, 31 x TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued OTHER AUTHORITIES Page(s) Annie Nova, More bubbles, less shorting. What the GameStop craziness could mean for the future of investing, CNBC Personal Finance, https://www.cnbc.com/ 2021/02/06/what-the-gamestop-craziness- could-mean-for-the-stock-markets-future. html (last visited Feb. 7, 2021) ................. 25 Chubb, From Nuisance to Menace: The Rising Tide of Securities Class Action Litigation (June 2019), https://bit.ly/3cvb Ix4 .............................................................