The Plaintiffs'decision to Sue Auditors in Securities Litigation: Private Enforcement or Opportunism?

By Gilbertson, David L.; Avila, Steven D. | Journal of Corporation Law, Spring 1999 | Go to article overview

The Plaintiffs'decision to Sue Auditors in Securities Litigation: Private Enforcement or Opportunism?


Gilbertson, David L., Avila, Steven D., Journal of Corporation Law


I. INTRODUCTION

The first half of this decade saw a crescendo of criticism of U.S. securities laws: articles appeared in the business and legal press alleging that these laws were being abused.l Much of the criticism focused on the plaintiffs' attorney:

Abusive and unwarranted litigation is a problem not just for the accounting profession, but for business and the economy generally. A small group of attorneys is reaping millions of dollars by bringing federal securities fraud claims (under SEC Rule lOb-5). .... These attorneys use the threat of enormous legal costs, a lengthy and disruptive discovery process, protracted litigation, and damage to reputation to force large settlements.2

No constituent group has been more vocal in its protest than the "Big 6"3 public accounting firms, which are frequently targets of securities class action lawsuits. These suits are a great concern to auditing firms because they are the source of nearly one-third of all lawsuits against auditors and account for more than one-half of the firms' settlement payments.4 These suits nearly always result in settlements, which many believe are unrelated to their legal merit,5 leading to the charges of "opportunism" described above. Furthermore, recent congressional and judicial actions have been premised upon evidence of abusive securities litigation6-evidence that is largely anecdotal. Even Senator Christopher J. Dodd, sponsor of one proposal, disparaged the lack of evidence on the need for significant legislative changes:

[A]fter a long hearing that lasted well into the afternoon, we found no agreement on whether there is in fact a problem, the extent of the problem, or the solution to the problem. In my experience with this subcommittee, I've never encountered an issue where there is such disagreement over the basic facts. We often argue about policy, we argue about ideology, we often argue about politics, but it is rare that we spend so much time arguing about basic facts.7

In 1991, the Big 6 accounting firms and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") began to organize efforts to reform the securities laws.8 Their massive lobbying efforts quickly began to produce results. Citing arguments similar to those found in the Big 6 firms' 1992 position paper,9 the California Supreme Court severely restricted accountants' common law liability in that state.lI Two years later, in what was termed "the most important federal securities law decision in several years,"11 the U.S. Supreme Court swept away the widely accepted doctrine of aiding and abetting liability in an apparent attempt to provide relief for the litigation-weary accounting profession.l2 Moreover, in December 1995, after receiving lengthy testimony from accounting firms and their allies, Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "Reform Act")13, which has been labeled the most sweeping change in United States securities laws since the New Deal.14

The squabble over securities reform, however, was far from over. In 1996, the AICPA was once again engaged in defending auditors' liability in securities lawsuitsthis time on the state level. California's Proposition 211, an initiative sponsored by the plaintiffs' bar, attempted to circumvent the Reform Act.lS Since the Reform Act only applied to federal courts, Proposition 211 would have allowed securities lawsuits that were precluded from being filed in federal courts to be heard in California state courts.l6 As a result, there would have been an increase in securities lawsuits filed in the state courts. Proposition 211, however, was voted down in the 1996 election. 17

Most recently, Congress adopted a measure that would preempt much of the present state law in favor of federal securities regulation. The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act was introduced in 199718 after several studies suggested that the frequency of securities class actions had not diminished, but rather had shifted from federal courts to state courts, thereby evading the provisions of the Reform Act. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Plaintiffs'decision to Sue Auditors in Securities Litigation: Private Enforcement or Opportunism?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.