Class Action Suits Involving Public Pensions Continue to Rise

The number of class action suits with pension funds as the lead plaintiff rose for the third consecutive year, according to a report from Cornerstone Research. The report also found that more than half of settlements with estimated damages of more than $500 million had a public pension plan as its lead plaintiff

Last year, US courts approved the highest number of securities class action settlements since 2010, according to the Securities Class Action Settlements—2016 Review and Analysis. report.

Want the latest institutional investment industry news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters. 

“While the spike in total settlement value in 2016 was largely driven by growth in very large cases,” said Laura Simmons, a Cornerstone Research senior advisor, and a coauthor of the report, “an increase in the median settlement amount also indicates a shift for more typical securities class actions.”

The total value of settlements approved by courts in 2016 was $5.99 billion, nearly twice the $3.07 billion recorded the previous year. However, the number of settlements only increased to 85 from 80, which indicates a significant number of those were so-called mega settlements in 2016.

Of the 10 approved mega settlements in 2016, four were between $100 million and $250 million, four were between $250 million and $500 million, and two were more than $1 billion. That made the median mega settlement in 2016 $318 million, which is almost twice the median reported the previous year. In 2016, $4.8 billion of the nearly $6 billion total settlement value came from mega settlements.

The report also found that the median settlement amount for cases with institutional investor lead plaintiffs was more than two and-a-half times that of cases with no institutional investor as a lead plaintiff.

Cornerstone said that cases in which public pension plans serve as lead or co-lead plaintiff typically involve larger defendants, longer class periods, securities in addition to common stock, accounting allegations, and other indicators of more serious cases such as criminal charges. These cases are also associated with taking longer to reach settlement.

However, the report also said that although growth in the number of settlements may continue in the coming years, the most recent data indicate a potential decline in very large cases, as measured by market capitalization losses. The report suggests that there could be a drop in mega settlements at some point in the next few years.

By Michael Katz

Columbia University’s trustees have voted to divest from companies that earn a significant portion of their revenue from thermal coal production.

“Divestment of this type is an action the university takes only rarely and in service of our highest values,” said Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. “That is why there is a very careful and deliberative process leading up to any decision such as this. Clearly, we must do all we can as an institution to set a responsible course in this urgent area.”

The university’s trustees have voted to divest from companies that take in more than 35% of their revenue from thermal coal production per the recommendation of its Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing (ACSRI).

The ACSRI said it made its recommendation because coal has the highest level of CO2 emission per unit of energy, and that there are several cleaner alternative energy sources for electricity production, such as natural gas, solar power and wind.

Want the latest institutional investment industry news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters. 

Thermal coal is used in coal-fired electricity generating plants, compared to metallurgic coal, which is used in steel production. The coal divestment had been more than three years in the making, beginning in fall 2013, when a student group, Columbia Divest for Climate Justice, called for divestment from the largest 200 coal, oil and natural gas producers. The ACSRI rejected that divestment proposal in May 2014.

The committee also recommended that the university establish a separate “fossil-free investment vehicle” to receive the contributions of alumni who would prefer such investment management. It also said the trustees should consider requesting Columbia Investment Management Company send a letter to the endowment’s investment managers, asking them to avoid companies that “refuse to acknowledge the social and financial costs of climate change and that fail to take economically sensible steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

The ACSRI added that divestment alone was not enough to help fight climate change, and suggested the university’s president should appoint a representative committee to formulate a “plan of action” that would address “further efforts by the university to shrink its carbon footprint.”

While the purpose of the divestment is to help fight climate change, Columbia acknowledged that it is mainly a symbolic gesture, pointing out that other buyers will step in, stock prices will not directly be affected, and coal producers will not stop producing coal.

“Although the university does not generally engage in symbolic speech on public policy matters, the university can and must stand up for the science,” the committee said in a statement. “A core mission of the university is the production of scientific knowledge and a core responsibility of the university in a democratic society is to encourage the use of the best -available knowledge in public decision-making.”

By Michael Katz