Back in 2004, 2005, and 2006, the former caretaker of this blog wrote about a practice known as "buried notice," and repeatedly wished (prayed?) that the practice would end.

Buried notice is how securities litigators describe the practice of "burying" the notice to class members of a new federal securities class action as required under the PSLRA, i.e., publishing it in a place that it is unlikely (or at least less likely) to be seen by class members.

It is a practice that has but two logical explanations:

1. The practitioners of this particular art form are attempting to keep the publicity surrounding their case to a minimum, in an effort to be appointed lead counsel.

2. The lawyer involved is not a member of the traditional plaintiffs' bar and is taking the notice statute ("shall cause to be published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service") at face value.

I am saddened to report that this practice is still alive and well.

Here is a scanned image of Page 18 of the November 23, 2007 issue of the Financial Times. Note at the bottom the "notice" regarding a new securities class action filed on behalf of purchasers of BP, p.l.c. securities.

The titan of the plaintiffs' bar that placed the ad and is going up against BP (market cap as of this afternoon - $218 Billion) - The Law Offices of William F. Salle.

Who?

This guy:

This is not the first time that Mr. Salle has published a notice in this manner.

And yet, he doesn't end up becoming lead counsel in this cases that he is theoretically "hiding" by burying them.

Also, he tends to file cases in the Central District of California, which PACER users may know as perhaps the slowest district court in the land to put complaints online or update their dockets, thus giving an additional advantage to any firm that can both bury a notice and file a case in that district.

Lastly, there is little, if any, valid reason to file a complaint against BP (a UK company) in the Central District of California. The far more obvious choices would be Alaska (where one of the defendants is headquartered) or New York (where the securities exchanges are located and the vast majority of non-US companies are sued for alleged securities law violations).

I am not a firm believer in coincidences.

In my humble opinion, Mr. Salle is acting in concert with another firm or firms who don't wish to sully their reputations by directly engaging in this practice themselves.

And because of this ridiculous refusal to follow the established practice of the remainder of the profession, I have to have members of my research team comb through, everyday, page by page, copies of Investors Business Daily, the Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times, among other publications.

Buried notice practitioners - you have been warned.