Glazer Capital Management LP v. Magistri

Ninth Circuit Opinion in Glazer Capital Management LP v. Magistri


The Ninth Circuit handed down a decision in a securities litigation case related to FCPA violations in Glazer Capital Management LP v. Magistri.

Glazer’s claims arose after InVision Technologies, Inc. (InVision) announced, in March 2004, that it had entered into a merger agreement with General Electric (GE). Several months later, in July 2004, InVision issued a press release, casting doubt on the merger because of the discovery of potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997(FCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 17dd-1. Although the proposed merger ultimately was consummated, the July 2004 announcement resulted in an immediate drop in InVision’s share price. A class action complaint was filed by InVision shareholders and Glazer was appointed lead plaintiff.

The suit was largely based on three alleged misstatements in the merger agreement attached to the 10-K filed to announce the transaction. The merger agreement has representations that InVision was in compliance with all applicable law, in compliance with the books and record provisions of the FCPA and that the company had no knowledge of any FCPA violations. The merger agreement was signed by the President/CEO and the COO of the company.

One element of securities litigation is to show the element of scienter, that is the the required state of mind for the violation. In this case, that the defendant intended to commit the fraud. There is a concept of “collective scienter” where the intent of the company is imputed on the individual. In this case, the court found that since the CEO and COO are the ones that signed the merger agreement the plaintiff needs to prove that one of those two new that the statements were not correct.

As Kevin M. LaCroix of the D & O Diary points out:

[I]n the InVision case, “the surreptitious nature of the transactions creates an equally strong inference that the payments would have deliberately kept secret – even within the company.” Obviously, payments of this

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:Decision | Federal, 9th Circuit, California | United States

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.

© Doug Cornelius | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Doug Cornelius on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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. Or, sign up using your email address.