Today's case, Katz v. Gerardi (10th Cir. 2011), involves a pair of securities class actions that were challenging a merger that had gone through (a currently burgeoning field for securities class action lawyers). The case involved a real estate investment trust (REIT), in which the two plaintiffs (Jack Katz and Infinity Clark Street Operating) were members. The REIT merged with another entity, and, as part of the merger, the two plaintiffs were bought out. Katz received cash for his shares; Infinity took shares in the new entity.
Then each of the plaintiffs sued, alleging that the merger's offer documents were false and misleading. Infinity filed a case in the District of Colorado, alleging breach of contract and fiduciary duty. (All of its claims were dismissed, except one that was stayed pending arbitration.) Katz filed his lawsuit in Illinois state court, claiming violation of securities laws. The defendants removed it to federal court (a story by itself), and the case was transferred to the District of Colorado. Once there, Katz amended his complaint and joined Infinity.
The defendants moved to dismiss, based on two theories. (1) Infinity could not assert federal securities-law claims because, since its previous lawsuit hadn't asserted them, it was splitting its claims; and (2) Katz could not assert federal securities claims because he was not a buyer of stock, but a seller. The district court dismissed the claims, and both plaintiffs appealed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Infinity had argued that it was not required to assert all of its claims in its first class action because the doctrine prohibiting claim-splitting (which derives from res judicata principles) required a final judgment. The Tenth Circuit disagreed.
Our precedent cannot be clearer: the test for claim splitting is not whether there is finality of judgment, but whether the first suit, assuming it were final, would preclude the second suit. This makes sense, given that the claim-splitting rule exists to allow district courts to manage their docket and dispense with duplicative litigation. If the party challenging a second suit on the basis of claim splitting had to wait until the first suit was final, the rule would be meaningless. The second, duplicative suit would forge ahead until the first suit became final, all the while wasting judicial resources.
(Emphases added.) Katz's argument involved a more creative question, but one that goes to the heart of merger class actions. Was he a buyer or a seller of the stock? Katz had argued that he was a buyer, because the merger had effected a "fundamental change" in his shares, essentially forcing him to "buy" them before selling them. Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit (who heard the same argument in the fight over removal) had called this argument "word play designed to overcome the actual text of the securities laws." (Emphasis added.) And the Tenth Circuit agreed.
The merger did not force him to purchase new securities, but only to sell his A-1 Units for cash or new units. Since Katz's 1933 Act claims only give standing to purchasers of securities, which Katz is not, his claims were properly dismissed.
So, what can defense lawyers use from this case? First and foremost, it provides an excellent definition of claim-splitting, one that applies not only to motions to dismiss, but also to arguments about adequacy and superiority when opposing certification. And second, it offers a useful reminder that it's always best to argue that words mean what they seem to. If your argument requires claiming that black is white, you're not liable to win your case so much as get yourself killed at the next crosswalk.