American International Group Inc.
American International Group Inc. Securities Settlement
The lawsuit was settled for $970.5 million in cash. The following is a summary of the proceedings in this lawsuit: ‘Lead Plaintiff claims in the Action are stated in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint dated May 19, 2009 (the Complaint). Lead Plaintiff alleged that some or all of the Defendants2 violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). The Complaint alleged that Defendants violated the federal securities law by allegedly misrepresenting and concealing the full extent of the Company exposure to the U.S. subprime residential real estate market, including in the Company credit default swap portfolio and its securities lending program. On August 5, 2009, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. On October 2, 2009, Lead Plaintiff filed opposition papers and, on December 3, 2009, Defendants filed reply papers. On September 27, 2010, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendants motions to dismiss. On November 24, 2010 and December 10, 2010, Defendants filed their respective answers to the Complaint. Defendants denied the claims and asserted a number of affirmative defenses. Fact discovery in the Action commenced in November 2010 and was substantially completed in June 2012. During this period, the Parties conducted approximately 45 fact witness depositions and produced and reviewed over 36 million pages of documents. On April 1, 2011, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and filed a renewed motion on July 6, 2011. Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on August 17, 2011. On November 2, 2011, the Court terminated the motion without prejudice pending the completion of class certification-related discovery. On March 30, 2012, Lead Plaintiff again filed its motion for class certification. Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on May 24, 2012, and Lead Plaintiff filed its reply on June 22, 2012. In connection with the motion for class certification, Lead Plaintiff and Defendants retained a total of six experts, each of whom submitted a declaration. Certain of the experts also submitted reply declarations. Each of the experts was deposed, as were 11 other non-expert witnesses. Further, in connection with the motion for class certification, on June 21, 2012, AIG filed a motion to preclude the declarations, testimony and opinions of Lead Plaintiff expert. Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on June 29, 2012, and AIG filed its reply on July 20, 2012. From April 29, 2013 through May 1, 2013, the Court held an evidentiary hearing in connection with Lead Plaintiff motion for class certification and AIG motion to preclude the declarations, testimony and opinions of Lead Plaintiff expert. At the hearing, Lead Plaintiff presented the testimony of Dr. Steven Feinstein and AIG presented the testimony of Dr. Vinita Juneja and Dr. Mukesh Bajaj. On May 1, 2013, the Court also held oral argument on the motions. On October 12, 2011, PwC, the Underwriter Defendants, and the Director Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, seeking the dismissal of certain claims under the Securities Act relating to alleged false and misleading statements of opinion in AIG financial statements under the Second Circuit decision in Fait v. Regions Financial Corp., 655 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2011). Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on December 2, 2011, the moving Defendants filed their reply on December 16, 2011, and Lead Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on December 30, 2011. On September 10, 2012, AIG and the Executive Defendants filed a joinder to the motion. On April 2, 2013, the Court held oral argument on the motion. On April 26, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order (April 26, 2013 Order) granting the motion. In its April 26, 2013 Order, the Court dismissed all claims against PwC. The Court also dismissed Lead Plaintiff Securities Act claims against AIG, its outside directors, the Underwriter Defendants and certain of the Individual Defendants to the extent those claims were based on statements of opinion. On May 14, 2013, the Court entered a Stipulation and Conforming Order that, among other things: specified the particular allegations subject to dismissal as a result of the Court April 26, 2013 Order; provided that the Stipulation did not dismiss any claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; reserved all arguments, claims or defenses as to the applicability of the April 26, 2013 Order to Lead Plaintiff claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and preserved Lead Plaintiff appeal rights with respect to the April 26, 2013 Order and the May 14, 2013 Stipulation and Conforming Order. All claims against PwC were dismissed from this Action in the April 26, 2013 Order. As of the date of the Stipulation, the time to appeal from that dismissal has not yet run, and Lead Plaintiff has the right to appeal the dismissal of those claims. In April 2012, Lead Plaintiff and AIG agreed to a mediation of the Action before the Honorable Layn R. Phillips, a former federal district court judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. In advance of the mediation, Lead Plaintiff and AIG made several detailed submissions to Judge Phillips. In addition, on July 13, 2012, each side made an extensive ex parte presentation to Judge Phillips, outlining their respective views of the relative merits of the claims and defenses and setting forth their respective positions as to settlement. Then, on July 25 and 26, 2012, Judge Phillips conducted a mediation session in New York City attended by representatives of Lead Plaintiff, AIG and their respective counsel. This mediation did not result in an agreement to resolve the Action. Another mediation before Judge Phillips was held on September 3-4, 2013. In advance of this mediation, Lead Plaintiff and AIG made further written submissions to Judge Phillips. This mediation also did not result in an agreement to resolve the Action. On November 15, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II), in which the Supreme Court agreed to consider the viability of the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance necessary to certify a class of putative securities fraud plaintiffs under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and alternatively what is needed to invoke and rebut the presumption. On December 19, 2013, after letter submissions from the Parties, the Court ordered Lead Plaintiff to show cause why the Action should not be stayed pending the issuance of a decision in Halliburton II. On January 6, 2014, Lead Plaintiff submitted its response to the December 19, 2013 order. AIG filed its reply to Lead Plaintiff response on January 10, 2014, and Lead Plaintiff filed a further response on January 14, 2014. On January 30, 2014, the Court stayed the Action pending a decision in Halliburton II. On June 23, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Halliburton II, sustaining the fraud-on-the-market presumption, affirming what a plaintiff must demonstrate to invoke the presumption, and providing that defendants may rebut the presumption at the class certification stage with evidence that the alleged misstatements had no impact on the price of the security at issue. On July 14, 2014, the parties submitted letters to the Court regarding the impact of Halliburton II on the Action. Following the Supreme Court decision, the Parties reached out to Judge Phillips to explore the potential of renewed settlement discussions. On July 15, 2014, counsel for AIG and Lead Counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, accepted a mediator proposal from Judge Phillips to settle and release all claims asserted in the Action against the Settling Defendants other than PwC in return for a cash payment of $960,000,000.00 for the benefit of the Settlement Class, subject to the execution of the Stipulation and related papers.’