Connaughton v. Day (Cir. Ct. Mont. Co.)

Filed: December 9, 2019

Opinion by: Judge Anne K. Albright

Holding: Plaintiffs alleging securities fraud were denied class certification because, despite demonstrating commonality of questions of law and fact, they failed to show that joinder of approximately 35 putative claimants was impracticable or that their claims were typical or their representation adequate, given the variety in the source, nature of and reliance on information received by the plaintiffs and putative class members.

Facts: The four Original Defendants were individuals and entities accused of procuring investors for a Ponzi scheme run by three non-parties, the MLJ Group. The second amended complaint named 14 New Defendants and additional related claims.

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Class Certification requested certification of a class of all persons who invested in securities, in the form of promissory notes, by lending money to borrowers of the MLJ Group. The requested class excluded individuals who profited off the Ponzi scheme and those affiliated with any Defendant.

The Amended Motion was served via counsel on the Original Defendants, but there were no Affidavits of Service for the New Defendants. The Original Defendants responded to the Amended Motion and participated in prior discovery; the New Defendants did not do either.

Analysis: The Court held that the Amended Motion did not meet the threshold requirements of Maryland Rule 2-231(b). As to the first numerosity requirement, the Court accepted an Original Defendant’s estimate that the putative class would be made up of 35 members, and the Plaintiffs provided only conclusory arguments for why joinder would be impracticable. As to second requirement of commonality, the Court was satisfied that Plaintiffs identified seven common questions of law and fact.  

As for the third typicality requirement, some Plaintiffs were contacted regarding the transaction by a non-party accountant rather than a Defendant. Other putative class members contacted by the Defendants themselves did not receive scripted, uniform information. The variety in the sources of information, the information received, and the reliance on the information makes the Plaintiffs’ claims less typical.

As for the fourth adequacy requirement, because the Plaintiffs may have relied on statements of the non-party accountant rather than a Defendant, the named Plaintiffs cannot adequately represent the putative class. Additionally, the accountant is both a potential target of claims and putative class member. Thus, only one of the four threshold requirements of Maryland Rule 231(b) was met.

The Plaintiffs also failed to meet the requirements of Maryland Rule 2-231(c)(3). As for the predominance requirement, fraud claims are not normally susceptible to class treatment because there could be too much variety regarding the degree of reliance placed on representations. This appears to be case here given the role of the non-party accountant and the receipt of unscripted information, as discussed above. As for the superiority of class action requirement, considering the pre-set trial schedule, the fact that the New Defendants were not given a chance to address these questions, and that more time would not cure the other failings of the Amended Motion, Plaintiff’s argument fails.

Thus, Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification was denied.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Atlas Master Fund, LTD. v. Terraform Global Inc. (Cir. Ct. Mont. Co.)

Filed:  January 3, 2019

Opinion by:  Judge Rubin

Holding:  To determine whether a claim under the Securities Act of 1933 adequately alleged omissions from a registration statement, a court will review whether there is a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted information would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the total mix of information made available.

Facts:  A Delaware corporation (the “Company”) with its principal office in Bethesda, Maryland, was formerly controlled by its sponsor/parent (“Parent”) in a YieldCo structure.  A YieldCo is a tax-efficient financing structure that exists largely to benefit the sponsor, by allowing “the sponsor to tap the public equity markets without giving up control of the underlying assets.”  The Company completed an IPO on July 31, 2015 at $15.00 per share of common stock.  The Company’s stockholders were paid $5.10 per share when it was acquired by a third party in December 2017.  Plaintiffs are investment funds that bought shares in the IPO and brought suit alleging the loss in value in the span of two years, resulted in large measure, from material representations and omissions in the Company’s registration statement. 

The registration statement provided that any material transaction between the Company and Parent would require the approval by the Company’s conflicts committee, which was composed entirely of independent directors (the “Conflicts Committee”).  On November 20, 2015, the Company’s board allegedly terminated the two members of the Conflicts Committee following the Committee’s failure to approve a transaction requested by Parent.  Later the same day, three new members were added to the Company’s board and approved the transaction. 

The registration statement also provided an assurance that Parent, which borrowed money to purchase and develop the assets it sold to the Company, had adequate capital and access to the capital markets to make acquisitions and to develop projects.  Plaintiffs alleged the registration statement failed to disclose that, at the time of the IPO, Parent needed a $169 million loan to satisfy an undisclosed margin call related to an earlier acquisition by Parent.  While the loan closed after the IPO in August 2015, plaintiffs alleged the terms were known before the offering.  The interest rate exceeded the disclosed average annual interest rate by 500%. 

The defendants, which included the Company and persons who served as officers and directors of both the Company and Parent, filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiffs failed to plead viable claims for relief under the Securities Act of 1933.

Analysis:  With respect to alleged omissions from a registration statement, a court will review whether there is a “substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted [information] would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available.”  Under circumstances where a registration statement contains both seemingly accurate and inaccurate information, “the Supreme Court has cautioned that ‘not every mixture with the true will neutralize the deceptive.  If it would take a financial analyst to spot the tension between the one and the other, whatever is misleading will remain materially so, and liability should follow.”

The Court found factual questions existed whether the registration statement was misleading with regard to each of the following aspects: (a) the Conflicts Committee, which was represented to be an effective control against self-dealing by Parent; (b) Parent’s then-existing financial condition and ability to raise capital to acquire and fund drop-down projects; and (c) Parent’s ability to disengage from the YieldCo model and decline to drop-down projects to the Company if Parent could get a better deal elsewhere. 

Conflicts Committee.  The Court stated that while the registration statement disclosed Parent’s ability to appoint all of the Company’s directors, including members of the Conflicts Committee, “a fair reading of the registration statement makes it seem that there would be a meaningful check in place to block overreaching by Parent regarding drop-downs.  No rational investor would equate the power to appoint [the Company’s] directors with the power to sack an independent Conflicts Committee, at will, and replace it with loyalists, the first time [the Company’s] Conflicts Committee rejected” a proposal. 

Parent’s Financial Condition.  The plaintiffs alleged that, although the loan closed in August 2015 after the IPO, the terms were known before the offering.  Plaintiffs conceded that the registration statement warned generally about the Company’s dependence upon Parent, and need for liquidity.  The Court stated that a registration statement may be misleading if “it fails entirely to disclose a material risk that is already known by the company” and concluded that it is a reasonable inference that certain defendants “knew of these impending, and imminent material financial events on July 31, 2015.”  The Court noted that the registration statement did not disclose the Parent’s need to secure the $169 million loan, which “likely would have alerted potential investors of material risks, otherwise unknown to the public.”  The Court disagreed with defendants’ contention that the Company had no duty to disclose any information about Parent’s financial condition, even if it knew about it, due to the YieldCo structure and the Company being completely controlled by Parent.

Ability to Disengage.  The Court recognized this part of plaintiffs claim as being more tenuous.  While the registration statement did not say that Parent could, at will, simply abandon the Company, “the offering documents did say that neither party was required to buy or sell any project, or to do so on any particular terms.”  Giving plaintiffs the benefit of all favorable inferences, the Court was disinclined to dismiss this part of the claim. 

The Court denied the motion to dismiss.  The Court also discussed the doctrine of class action tolling.  

The opinion is available in PDF.

Dexter v. ZAIS Financial Corp. (Cir. Ct. Balto. City)

Filed: December 8, 2016

Opinion by: Judge Audrey J.S. Carrion

Holding:

The Wittman standard of awarding attorneys’ fees is not met in a cash-stock merger suit alleging inadequate information in the registration statement because (1) directors do not owe shareholders a common law duty of candor in that type of transaction, and therefore the claim cannot be “meritorious” when filed, and (2) the corporate benefit was not casually related to the suit when the information in published disclosures was in accordance with previous public filings filed before the suit.

Facts:

On April 7, 2016, a merger agreement was announced between ZAIS, the Defendant, and another party, the Second Defendant, in which shareholders could elect to receive all cash or all stock.  The Second Defendant would be merged into a subsidiary of Defendant, ZAIS would issue its shares to the Second Defendant’s shareholders, and ZAIS would make a pre-merger tender offer to its shareholders who would not like to own shares in the resulting company.

The registration statement was filed on May 10 and amended on June 20 and August 5, 19 and 26, 2016 (the “August Registration Statement”).   On August 24, 2016, Dexter, the Plaintiff, an individual shareholder of Defendant, filed a complaint alleging inadequate information about the shareholder vote.  Plaintiff argued that details about the final exchange ratio, the per share tender offer price and conflicts of interest were missing from the registration statement.

Dexter then filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  On September 12, 2016, ZAIS filed supplemental disclosures with the SEC.  On September 19, 2016, Dexter withdrew the Injunction Motion as moot and it was granted.  On September 30, 2016, Dexter filed a request for attorneys’ fees.  Defendants argue that the supplemental disclosures were disclosed not due to Plaintiff’s demand letter, but rather in accordance with the registration statement.

Analysis:

The “corporate benefit” doctrine is an exception to the American Rule, which states that litigants bear the cost of their own attorneys’ fees and expenses.  In re First Interstate Bancorp, 756 A.2d 357, 756 A.2d 353, 357 (Del. Ch. 1999).  It should be noted that attorneys’ fees can be awarded even when a defendant moots a claim by satisfying a plaintiff’s demands.  Tandycrafts v. Initio Partners, 562 A.2d 1162, 1164 (Del. 1966) citing Chrysler Corp. v. Dann, 223 A.2 384, 386 (Del. 1966).

The Court required the Plaintiff to satisfy the three conditions of the Wittman standard: the suit was meritorious when filed; the action producing the corporate benefit was taken by the Defendant prior to a judicial resolution; and the resulting corporate benefit was causally related to the lawsuit.  Wittman v. Crooke, 120 Md. app. 369, 379, 707 A.2d 422, 426 (1998).

1. The Suit was not meritorious when filed.

A suit is “meritorious” when it can “withstand a motion to dismiss on the pleadings.”  The Court held that Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant’s directors breached the duty of candor and the Second Defendants aided and abetted that breach could not have been meritorious.

The Court disagreed with Plaintiff that Shenker applied to this case.  The transaction in Shenker v. Laureate Education, Inc., 411 Md. 317, 338, 983 A.2d 408, 420 (2009), involved a cash-out merger after the decision to sell the corporation had already been made and that Court “determined the common law duties are triggered when the decision is made to sell the corporation, the sale of the corporation is a foregone conclusion, or the sale involved an inevitable or highly likely change-of-control situation.”

In this case, the Court agreed with Defendant that Revlon duties do not apply in a cash-stock election merger, similar to this merger.  Therefore, individual shareholders like the Plaintiff may not bring direct claims against the directors for a breach of common law duties.  ZAIS also referred to Sutton v. FedFirst Financial Corp., 226 Md. App. 46, 85, 126 A.3d 765, 788 (2015), which involved a stock-for-stock transaction, and the Court of Special Appeals did not apply Revlon.

2. The corporate benefit was not causally related to the Suit.

The September 12 Supplemental Disclosures were made in accordance with the August Registration Statement, which included a prospectus with a calculation of the exchange ratio, that was to be publicly announced at least five days before the shareholder meetings.

The Court found that the benefit to the Defendant’s shareholders – the disclosure of the Exchange Ratio and Tender Offer price – was not caused by the Plaintiff’s lawsuit; it was “mere happenstance” (Wittman).

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Mathews v. Cassidy Turley Maryland, Inc. (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed: November 26, 2013

Opinion by Judge Robert N. McDonald

Held: (1) Under the Maryland Securities Act (the “Act”), the offer and sale of a tenant-in-common (“TIC”) interest in commercial real estate under terms requiring a mandatory management contract with an affiliate of the seller and granting the purchasers only a limited opportunity to change management involves a “security.” (2) The statute of limitations periods for claims brought under the Act for sale of an unregistered security and for transacting business as an unregistered broker-dealer or agent are not tolled by the judicially created discovery rule of Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631 (1981), or under the fraudulent concealment provision of Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings §5-203 (“CJ §5-203”). (3) The statute of limitations periods for claims brought under the Act for fraud in the offer or sale of a security and for transacting business as an unregistered investment advisor and for material misrepresentations made in that capacity are not tolled by the discovery rule of Poffenberger but may be tolled under the fraudulent concealment provision of CJ §5-203.

Facts: In 2003, petitioner, who had owned and managed rental properties for over forty years, sold eleven different properties through the respondent real estate brokerage for approximately $4 million. For favorable tax treatment petitioner sought to re-invest the proceeds in other real estate and based on the respondent’s advice, petitioner used much of the proceeds to purchase five fractional interests or TICs in various commercial buildings.

The TICs were all created by DBSI, Inc. of Idaho, or an affiliate. Purchasers of the TICs were required to retain DBSI or its affiliate as the property manager and in return the purchasers would receive a set annual rate of return on their purchase monies. The property manager could only be removed by majority vote of all TIC owners of a specific property and a new property manager could only be appointed by the unanimous consent of all the TIC owners. The TIC owners had no direct control over the property.

In 2008, after petitioner learned that DSBI would be suspending payments on certain properties, DBSI filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. The properties subject to petitioner’s TICs were foreclosed. The bankruptcy court ultimately found DSBI’s transactions to have been constructively or actually fraudulent. The Securities Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office contacted petitioner in 2009 in the course of investigating the offer and sale of the TICs in Maryland. On March 23, 2010, the petitioner filed suit in Circuit Court against the respondent for violation of the Act, breach of contract and common law tort claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and constructive fraud. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the respondent on all counts finding in pertinent part that the TICs were not a security under the Act and, even if they were deemed a security, the petitioner’s claims were time barred. Following petitioner’s timely appeal the Court of Appeals granted certiorari to determine, inter alia, whether (1) the TICs are securities under the Act; and (2) whether the petitioner’s claims under the Act are time barred.

Analysis:  The Court of Appeals first analyzed the Act to determine if the TICs were securities. The Act broadly defines a “security” to include an “investment contract” but the meaning of the term “investment contract” was a matter of first impression for the Court.  The Court noted that when interpreting the Act, it may consider the federal Securities Act because the Act states that it is to be coordinated with the related federal law. Reviewing pertinent federal precedent, particularly SEC v. Howey, 328 U.S. 293 (1946), the Court determined that an “investment contract” was an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits derived from the significant efforts of others.

In this case, the sole issue was whether the purchasers of TICs had an expectation of profits derived from the significant efforts of the property manager. The Court concluded that the Howey test was met because the profits were generated by the property manager’s actions. Even though the investors, acting collectively, had the authority to remove the property manager, the efforts by the property manager were no less dominant and essential to the success of the enterprise than are the efforts of the management of a corporation. The TIC investment was, therefore, held to be a “security” under the Act.

The Court then considered whether the petitioner’s claims under the Act were time barred. The petitioner’s private causes of action under the Act included allegations of respondent’s (1) offer and sale of an unregistered security, (2) transacting business as an unregistered broker-dealer or agent, (3) misrepresentations or omissions of material fact in the offer and sale of a security, and (4) violations of the investment advisor requirements of the Act (i.e., both lack of registration as an investment advisor and misrepresentations made in that capacity). The statutes of limitations under the Act for each of these various claims had lapsed.

The Court analyzed whether petitioner’s claims could be tolled by either (1) the Poffenberger discovery rule, which delays the accrual of the statute of limitations until when the wrong is discovered or when the wrong should have been discovered through reasonable diligence; or (2) CJ §5-203, which delays the accrual of the cause of action when the plaintiff remains ignorant of the cause of action due to the defendant’s fraudulent concealment.

Analyzing the private causes of actions under the Act, the Court found that Poffenberger discovery rule did not toll the relevant statutes of limitations. The Court compared the limitations provisions for the causes of actions involving lack of registration (of the security or as a broker-dealer) with the limitations provisions for causes of action involving misrepresentations and fraud. Citing Md. Code Corp. & Assn’s, §11-703(f)(1)&(2)(i), the Court noted that for the sale of an unregistered security or acting as an unregistered broker-dealer, a cause of action must be brought “after the earlier to occur” of (1) three years after the contract of sale or purchase; or (2) one year after the violation. On the other hand, citing Md. Code Corp. & Assn’s, §11-703(f)(1)&(2)(ii), the Court noted that for a violation of the anti-fraud provisions, a cause of action may not be brought “after the earlier to occur” of (1) three years after the contract of sale or purchase or (2) one year after “discovery of the untrue statement or omission, or after discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.” The limitations provision applicable to the investment advisor requirements likewise requires such a claim to be brought no later than the earlier of (1) three years “after the date of the advisory contract or the rendering of investment advice” or (2) two years after “the discovery of the facts constituting the violation.” Md. Code Corp. & Assn’s, §11-703(f)(3). The Court concluded that because the limitations provisions applicable to anti-fraud and investment advisor violations under the Act includes their own discovery rule, the legislature did not intend for the Poffenberger discovery rule to apply to those violations. Further, the legislature did not intend for the Poffenberger discovery rule to apply to registration violations because it did not include a discovery rule in the limitation for those violations, as it did for the anti-fraud violations. Thus, the Court held the Poffenberger discovery rule to not apply to these private causes of action under the Act.

The Court analyzed next whether CJ §5-203 applied to the private causes of action under the Act. It found that CJ §5-203 did not apply to the violations of the registration provisions because a reasonably prudent buyer could have discovered those violations from publicly available information at the time of sale of the unregistered security or sale by an unregistered broker-dealer. However, CJ §5-203 could toll the anti-fraud violations because the tolling arises from the affirmative misconduct of the defendant and has been held applicable to limitations as to both statutory and common law claims. Finding no indication that the legislature did not intend for CJ §5-203 to apply to claims of fraud under the Act if plaintiff’s acquisition of knowledge of the violation is hindered by defendant’s fraudulent concealment, the Court held that CJ §5-203 could apply to anti-fraud claims under the Act. Because the issue of fraudulent concealment is fact-intensive and the Circuit Court did not explicitly consider whether the undisputed facts negated tolling under CJ §5-203, the Court reversed the Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment for the  respondent to the extent the counts under the Act asserted claims for fraud.

The judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed in part and reversed in part and the case remanded back to the Circuit Court.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Harkness v. C-Bass Diamond, LLC (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: March 16, 2010
Opinion by Judge Catherine C. Blake

Held: The Plaintiff, the general counsel of the defendant's predecessor, Fieldstone, did not suffer retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 because her activities failed to qualify as protected activity under the Act because of (i) her limited research regarding violations of the Act and (ii) her failure to specify which federal securities laws or regulations were violated by the corporation.

Facts and Analysis: On March 1, 2004, at the invitation of the company's CEO, Michael Sonnenfeld, Cynthia Harkness began working as general gounsel to manage the company's s legal department as the company moved from being a private company to a publicly-traded company. Harkness' duties were extended by Sonnenfeld a few months later to include the management of Fieldstone's Quality Control and Human Resources Departments. Harkness subsequently hired Sally LaFond, an attorney that previously worked for the law firm that served as the company's outside securities counsel, to serve as Assistant General Counsel.

In April of 2004, Fieldstone submitted its application to become a publicly-traded company with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and adopted an internal Code of Business Conduct that closely followed the rules and regulations to which publicly-traded companies are subject in anticipation of the approval of its application to be a publicly-traded company. The adopted Code of Business Conduct required that Fieldstone create an Audit Committee that would be comprised of independent directors and prohibited Fieldstone employees from disclosing material, non-public information about the corporation to third parties.

Prior to the SEC's approval of the company's application, LaFond informed Harkness that she had received reports that Sonnenfeld disclosed to an outside investor material, non-public information regarding the company's restatement of its earnings and that the informants believed the disclosures would constitute a violation of Regulation FD if the company were a publicly-traded company. Following further discussions with the informants, Harkness informed the Chair of the company's Audit Committee of Sonnenfeld's disclosure and stated that it might constitute a violation of Regulation FD.

In response to Harkness' report, the Chair of the Audit Committee requested that Harkness interview Sonnenfeld and then provide the Audit Committee with her legal opinion regarding the violation of Regulation FD. In the interview, Sonnenfeld confirmed his disclosure to the outside investor and stated that he told the investor that he could not trade based on the information. Prior to Harkness delivering her legal opinion, the Chair of the Audit Committee informed her that it was the opinion of the outside securities counsel that Sonnenfeld's disclosure did not violate Regulation FD because the company was not yet a publicly-traded company and because Sonnenfeld told the outside investor that he could not trade based on the disclosed information and asked Harkness to prepare a report for the Audit Committee regarding whether the company's Code of Business Conduct or Regulation FD had been violated by Sonnenfeld. After asking LaFond to review Regulation FD in preparation for the report, Harkness reported to the Audit Committee that Sonnenfeld's disclosure would likely be deemed a violation of Regulation FD if the company was subject to Regulation FD due to its shares being publicly registered. (Emphasis added.)

Following Harkness' report to the Audit Committee, the relationship between Sonnenfeld and Harkness deteriorated. As evidence of the deterioration, Harkness alleged that Sonnenfeld removed her from leading the Quality Control and Human Resource Departments, markedly changed the tone of his comments in her annual review, prohibited her from attending senior management meetings, and refused to inform her of Fieldstone's significant transactions. In response to her routine exclusion from Fieldstone's important meetings and events, Harkness reported to external auditors, and later to Fieldstone's Audit Committee, that she could not ensure Fieldstone's legal compliance with SEC laws and regulations due to her isolation within the corporation.

Harkness later met with Fieldstone executives to discuss the possibility of her resignation and to negotiate a severance package and then took a planned vacation. Upon Harkness' return, Fieldstone presented her with a termination letter and a proposed severance package that Harkness believed to be insufficient. Prior to leaving Fieldstone, Harkness completed a disclosure questionnaire in which she stated that she believed Fieldstone to have violated Title VII and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Act") by terminating her based on sex discrimination or retaliation.

Following her separation from Fieldstone, Harkness filed a complaint against Fieldstone with the Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration which alleged retaliation by Fieldstone under the Act. After waiting 180 days for the Secretary of the Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue a final decision, Harkness filed suit with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against C-Bass Diamond, LLC, the named defendant and successor of Fieldstone. C-Bass immediately moved for summary judgment arguing that Harkness failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the Act because she did not engage in protected activity under the Act and can not prove causation.

Noting that the Act does provide protection against retaliation to whistle-blowing employees of publicly-traded companies that report potentially unlawful conduct if the employee is able to establish that "(1) the employee engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer knew, actually or constructively, of the protected activity; (3) the employee suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and (4) the circumstances raise an inference that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the personnel action," the Court first examined Harkness' first report to the Audit Committee to determine whether Harkness' first report represented a protected activity under the Act. Acknowledging precedent, the Court stated that in order for Harkness to establish that her report regarding Sonnenfeld's disclosure was protected activity, she must demonstrate that she had a subjective and objectively reasonable belief that Sonnenfeld's disclosure constituted a violation of Regulation FD.

After reviewing all steps taken by Harkness in connection with the investigation and research of Sonnenfeld's disclosure and its possible violation of Regulation FD, the Court found that Harkness failed to demonstrate that she had an objectively reasonable belief that Sonnenfeld's disclosure constituted a violation of Regulation FD because, prior to talking with the Chair of the Audit Committee, she failed to do any research on whether Regulation FD even applied to Sonnenfeld's disclosure, to request that LaFond, who was experienced in securities laws, do any research, or seek the opinion of the corporation's outside securities counsel with respect to the possible violation of Regulation FD and only requested that LaFond research Regulation FD upon the Chair of the Audit Committee's statement that outside securities counsel did not believe Sonnenfeld's actions to violate Regulation FD. With Harkness having over 20 years of legal experience, the Court found that such routes of investigation and research should have been readily ascertainable when Harkness was deciding the applicability of Regulation FD to Sonnenfeld's disclosure and that because of her failure to utilize the resources that were available to her to determine whether Regulation FD was applicable, she failed to establish that a reasonable person in her position would have believed that Sonnenfeld's disclosure violated Regulation FD.

The Court next went on to determine whether Harkness' second report to the Audit Committee regarding her inability to ensure Fieldstone's compliance with SEC laws and regulations because of her continued exclusion from Fieldstone's important meetings and events was actionable protected activity under the Act. Citing precedent again, the Court found that Harkness' second report to the Audit Committee would need to identify the specific conduct that Harkness believed to be a violation of the law to qualify as protected activity under the Act. Because Harkness failed to specifically allege which SEC laws or regulations she believed Fieldstone to have violated by excluding her from important meetings and events, but only alleged that her exclusion put Fieldstone at an increased risk of legal violations of SEC laws, the Court concluded that Harkness' second report to the Audit Committee did not constitute protected activity. Finding that Harkness failed to meet her burden of establishing that either of her acts were protected activity under the Act, the Court granted C-Bass' motion for summary judgment.

The full opinion is available in PDF. This opinion has not been recommended for publication.