Second Circuit Rejects Brachycephalic Canine Fund’s Section 16(b) Defense

When it comes to challenging the status quo of securities regulation, Bulldog Investors lives up to its name.  In 2006, Bulldog’s principal, Phillip Goldstein, successfully challenged the Securities and Exchange Commission’s hedge fund rule.  Goldstein v. SEC, 451 F.3d 873 (D.C. Cir. 2006).  Later, Bulldog was less successful in challenging an enforcement action taken by the Massachusetts Secretary of State.  Bulldog Investors General Partn. v. Secretary,  953 N.E.2d 691 (2011), cert denied Bulldog Investors Gen. P’ship v. Galvin, 132 S. Ct. 2377 (2012).  See Supreme Court Fails To Bite At Bulldog and Oxfam America Sues the SEC and see Alan Parness’ article, The Bulldog Gets Muzzled” in The Blue Sky Bugle (February/March 2008).

Now, Bulldog and Mr. Goldstein have challenged the Section 16(b) on constitutional grounds.  In a novel argument, Bulldog contended that the district court was without jurisdiction to hear short-swing profit claims.   We have a federal statute (Section 16(b)) and we have a person authorized by statute to bring suit (an owner of the issuer’s security).  Assuming that the issuer either failed or refused to bring suit, on what possible grounds could the federal court lack jurisdiction to hear the case? 

Bulldog claimed that the case presented no live case or controversy because the plaintiff could not show “injury in fact”.  In other words, the plaintiff lacked what is known as constitutional standing under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.  As the students in my administrative law class will soon be learning, the Supreme Court requires for constitutional standing that there be “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).  The Second Circuit would have none of this, finding that Section 16(b) “created legal rights that clarified the injury that would support standing”.  Donoghue v. Bulldog Investors Gen. P’ship, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20472 (2d Cir. Oct. 1, 2012).

 

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×
×