• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / COURT DISMISSES SECURITIES LAW CLAIMS AGAINST REINSURER, GRANTS LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

COURT DISMISSES SECURITIES LAW CLAIMS AGAINST REINSURER, GRANTS LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

March 2, 2010 by Carlton Fields

PXRE Group Ltd. (“PXRE”) suffered significant losses following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and sought to raise funds to pay out reinsurance claims through a public offering of common stock and a private offering of preferred shares. In October 2005, plaintiffs, a group of nineteen hedge funds, purchased preferred shares and were provided with a private placement memorandum in connection with the purchase. In February 2006, PXRE disclosed that actual losses were twice as much as previously announced. The plaintiffs then brought this action asserting claims for violations of sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and state law claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss.

On the section 12(a)(2) claim, which imposes liability for selling securities via a prospectus that includes a material misrepresentation, the court first ruled that this claim must fail because private offerings are not effected by means of a prospectus. Still, the plaintiffs sought to invoke the integration doctrine, arguing that the private offering of preferred shares was integrated with the public offering of common stock and therefore liability attached to the alleged misrepresentations in the private placement memorandum, but the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to invoke the integration doctrine. The court then dismissed the section 15 claim, which establishes control person liability for a violation of section 12(a)(2), and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The district court thus granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, but did grant the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. In a February 23, 2010 Order, the district court acknowledged receipt of the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and instructed the defendants to provide the court with a letter on whether the defendants intend to answer the complaint or renew their motion to dismiss. Anegada Master Fund, Ltd. v. PXRE Group Ltd., Case No. 08-10584 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2010).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

Filed Under: Arbitration / Court Decisions, Week's Best Posts

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.