In re Alstom Sa Securities Litigation

Decision Date22 December 2005
Docket NumberNo. 03 Civ. 6595(VM).,03 Civ. 6595(VM).
Citation406 F.Supp.2d 346
PartiesIn re ALSTOM SA SECURITIES LITIGATION. This document relates to all actions.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Daniel Lawrence Berger, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, New York, NY, Darren J. Robbins, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Nynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego), San Diego, CA, Deborah Sturman, Eitan Misulovin, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, New York, NY, Geoffrey Jarvis, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE, Gerald Harlan Silk, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, New York, NY, Jay W. Eisenhofer, John C. Kairis, Russell D. Paul, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, Wilmington, DE, Sidney Stephen Liebesman, Graham, Miller, Neandross, Mullin & Roonan, LLC, New York, NY, Valerie L. McLaughlin, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA, Victoria Odette Wilheim, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, New York, NY, William S. Lerach, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia & Robbins, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System.

Daniel Lawrence Berger, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, New York, NY, Darren J. Robbins, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Nynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego), San Diego, CA, Deborah Sturman, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, New York, NY, Geoffrey Jarvis, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE, Gerald Harlan Silk, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, New York, NY, Jay W. Eisenhofer, John C. Kairis, Russell D. Paul, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, Wilmington, DE, Sidney Stephen Liebesman, Graham, Miller, Neandross, Mullin & Roonan, LLC, New York, NY, Valerie L. McLaughlin, Lerach Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA, Victoria Odette Wilheim, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, New York, NY, William S. Lerach, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia & Robbins, LLP, San Diego, CA, for State Universities Retirement System of Illinois, West Virginia Inv. Management Bd.

Daniel Lawrence Berger, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, New York, NY, Darren J. Robbins, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Nynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego), San Diego, CA, Deborah Sturman, Eitan Misulovin, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, New York, NY, Geoffrey Jarvis, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE, Gerald Harlan Silk, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, New York, NY, Jay W. Eisenhofer, John C. Kairis, Russell D. Paul, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, Wilmington, DE, Sidney Stephen Liebesman, Graham, Miller, Neandross, Mullin & Roonan, LLC, New York, NY, Valerie L. McLaughlin, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA, William S. Lerach, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia & Robbins, LLP, San Diego, CA, for International Broth. of Electrical Workers, Local 269.

Andrei V. Rado, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, New York, NY, David AVI Rosenfeld, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP (LIS), Melville, NY, Geoffrey Jarvis, Russell D. Paul, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, Wilmington, DE, Samuel Howard Rudman, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP (LIS), Melville, NY, William S. Lerach, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia & Robbins, LLP, San Diego, CA, Daniel Lawrence Berger, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, New York, NY, Jay W. Eisenhofer, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, Wilmington, DE, Sidney Stephen Liebesman, Graham, Miller, Neandross, Mullin & Roonan, LLC, New York, NY, for Michael Abramsky.

David AVI Rosenfeld, Samuel Howard Rudman, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP (LIS), Melville, NY, for Michael Abramsky on behalf of others similarly situated.

George A. Davidson, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP, New York, NY, for Alston SA, Pierre Bilger, Patrick Kron, Philippe Jaffre.

DECISION AND ORDER

I

MARRERO, District Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.  INTRODUCTION ..................................................................350
                 II.  BACKGROUND ....................................................................352
                      A.  THE PARTIES ...............................................................352
                          1.  Plaintiffs ............................................................352
                          2.  Defendants ............................................................353
                      B.  FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS .......................................................355
                          1.  Vendor Financing at the Marine Division ...............................356
                          2.  The ABB Joint Venture .................................................356
                          3.  Problems Relating to the Turbines Are Disclosed .......................358
                          4.  Revelation of Vendor Financing in the Marine Division .................361
                          5.  Additional Reserves Taken in Relation to the Turbines .................361
                          6.  Understatement of Costs at ATI ........................................362
                      C.  SCIENTER ALLEGATIONS ......................................................363
                      D.  JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS ................................................364
                
                      E.  PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................365
                III.  SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ...................................................366
                      A.  STATEMENT OF LAW ..........................................................366
                          1.  Subject Matter Jurisdiction ...........................................367
                              (a)  Effects ..........................................................368
                              (b)  Conduct ..........................................................371
                                    (i)  Theory of Fraud and Particulars of the Statutory Violation
                                           Charged ..................................................376
                                   (ii)  Location of Relevant Conduct ...............................377
                                  (iii)  Timeline of Relevant Acts ..................................377
                                   (iv)  Materiality/Substantiality .................................379
                                    (v)  Causation ..................................................380
                                   (vi)  Reasonableness and Congressional Policy ....................381
                      B.  DISCUSSION ................................................................385
                          1.  Theory of Fraud .......................................................385
                              (a)  The Individual Frauds ............................................386
                                    (i)  The Marine Fraud ...........................................386
                                   (ii)  The Turbine Fraud ..........................................386
                                  (iii)  The ATI Fraud ..............................................387
                              (b)  The Overarching Theory ...........................................388
                                    (i)  Single Fraud ...............................................388
                                   (ii)  Two Frauds .................................................389
                                  (iii)  Three Frauds ...............................................390
                              (c)  Analysis .........................................................391
                          2.  Location of the Conduct Alleged .......................................391
                          3.  Timeline off the Fraud ................................................393
                              (a)  The Marine Fraud .................................................393
                              (b)  The Turbine Fraud ................................................394
                              (c)  The ATI Fraud ....................................................394
                          4.  Materiality/Substantiality ............................................395
                          5.  Causation Analysis ....................................................396
                          6.  Reasonableness ........................................................396
                      C.  CONCLUSION ................................................................397
                 IV.  PERSONAL JURISDICTION .........................................................397
                      A.  STATEMENT OF LAW ..........................................................397
                      B.  DISCUSSION ................................................................399
                          1.  Jurisdiction As To Purves .............................................399
                          2.  Jurisdiction As To Tchuruk ............................................400
                  V.  ORDER .........................................................................401
                
I. INTRODUCTION

Lead plaintiffs in this class action, the State Universities Retirement System of Illinois ("SURS"), the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System ("San Diego ERS"), the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System ("Louisiana ERS"), the West Virginia Investment Management Board ("West Virginia IMB"), and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 269 ("IBEW") (collectively, the "Lead Plaintiffs," as representatives for "Plaintiffs"),1 filed the Consolidated Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, dated June 18, 2004 (the "Complaint"), alleging violations of both the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq. (the "Securities Act"), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq. (the "Exchange Act"). On September 30, 2004, all defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. Because of the breadth of issues raised in their various submissions, the Court considers defendants' motions in separate rulings. In this decision, to be referred to as "Alstom I," the Court addresses all motions contesting the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the dispute as to certain parties. In companion opinions to be issued separately, the Court adjudicates the defendants' remaining motions.

Defendants Alstom S.A. ("Alstom"), Alstom USA, Inc. ("Alstom USA"), Alstom Transportation Inc. ("ATI"), Alcatel,2 the Underwriter Defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • In re Aegean Marine Petroleum Network, Inc. Sec. Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 29, 2021
    ... 529 F.Supp.3d 111 IN RE AEGEAN MARINE PETROLEUM NETWORK, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION 18 Civ. 4993 (NRB) United States District Court, S.D. New York. Signed March 29, 2021 ... Id. at 287. In re Alstom SA , 406 F. Supp. 2d 346, 399, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ; Rex & Roberta Ling Living Tr. u/a Dec. 6, ... ...
  • Maersk, Inc. v. Neewra, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 27, 2008
    ... ... complicated history, due both to the nature of the alleged schemes and the lengthy prior litigation. The exposition below is organized as follows: II.a. Parties; II.b. Frauds; II.c. Litigation ... See In re Alstom SA 406 F.Supp.2d 346, 397-98 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("[T]he court need only determine whether the facts ... ...
  • Balestra v. ATBCOIN LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 31, 2019
    ... ... Hoover, alleging that Defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act" or the "Act"), 15 U.S.C. 77a, et seq., by selling unregistered ... 6 which focuses on the "relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation," Walden v. Fiore , 571 U.S. 277, 28384, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) requires a ... " In re Alstom SA Sec. Litig. , 406 F.Supp.2d 346, 39798 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Credit Lyonnais Sec. (USA), ... ...
  • Deangelis v. Corzine (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 12, 2013
    ...2011, but MF Global's public filings with the SEC, of which the Court can take judicial notice, see In re Alstom SA Sec. Litig. ( Alstom I ), 406 F.Supp.2d 346, 352 (S.D.N.Y.2005), show that MacDonald left that position in March of 2011. 10. The CAC mistakenly quotes MacDonald as saying tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Transnational class actions and interjurisdictional preclusion.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 86 No. 1, February 2011
    • February 1, 2011
    ...of federal subject matter jurisdiction, see In re Royal Dutch/Shell, 522 F. Supp. 2d at 717-24; In re Alstom SA Sec. Litig., 406 F. Supp. 2d 346, 366-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). But see Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2877 (holding that the extraterritorial reach of a federal statute is a merits question, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT