Donald J. Trump Casino Securities Litigation-Taj Mahal Litigation, In re
| Citation | 7 F.3d 357 |
| Decision Date | 14 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-5350,LITIGATION--TAJ,92-5350 |
| Parties | , 62 USLW 2243, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,789 In re DONALD J. TRUMP CASINO SECURITIESMAHAL LITIGATION. Sidney L. KAUFMAN, suing individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated; Jerome Schwartz, suing individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated; Peter Stuyvesant, Ltd., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; Susan Cagan; Eric Cagan; David E. Dougherty; Jean Curzio; Alexander L. Charnis; Dorothy Arkell; Fred Glossner; Herman Krangel; Robert Kloss; Helen Kloss; Fairmount Financial Corp.; Joanne Gollomp; Dino Del Zotto v. TRUMP'S CASTLE FUNDING; Trump's Castle Associates Limited Partnership, a New Jersey Limited Partnership; Trump Taj Mahal Funding, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation; Trump Taj Mahal Associates Limited Partnership, a New Jersey Limited Partnership; Donald J. Trump; Robert S. Trump; John O'Donnell; Nathan Katz; Tim Maland; Francisco Tejeda; Julian Menarguez; Harvey I. Freeman; Paul Henderson; Patrick C. McKoy; Edward M. Tracy; Michael S. Vautrin; Jeffrey A. Ross; John P. Belisle; Timothy G. Rose; Lori Taylor; C. "Bucky" Willard; The Trump Organization, Inc.; Trump Taj Mahal, Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. Sidney L. KAUFMAN, suing individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. TRUMP'S CASTLE FUNDING; Trump's Castle Associates Limited Partnership, a New Jersey Limited Partnership; Trump Taj Mahal Funding, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation; Trump Taj Mahal Associates Limited Partnership, a New Jersey Limited Partnership; Donald J. Trump. Jerome SCHWARTZ, suing individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. TRUMP'S CASTLE FUNDING, INC. (A New Jersey Corporation); Trump's Castle Associates Limited Partnership (A New Jersey Limited Partnership); Trump Taj Mahal Funding, Inc. (A New Jersey Corporation); Trump Taj Mahal Associates Limited Partnership (A New Jersey Limited Partnership); Donald J. Trump. PETER STUYVESANT, LTD., on behalf of i |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Stuart D. Wechsler (argued), Joel C. Feffer, New York City, Stanley R. Wolfe, Todd S. Collins, Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Carl D. Poplar, Cherry Hill, NJ, Gerald Jay Rodos, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Philadelphia, PA, Robert S. Schachter, Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, Bruce E. Gerstein, Garwin, Bronzaft, Gerstein & Fisher, New York City, Charles V. Van de Walle, Martin, Van de Walle, Guardino & Donohue, Great Neck, NY, Jared Stamell, Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Stamell, Tabacco & Schager, Joseph H. Weiss, New York City, Michael A. Cohan, Cohan & Eckhaus, Parlin, NJ, James V. Bashian, New York City, C. Oliver Burt, III, James R. Malone, Mark C. Rifkin, Debra N. Nathanson, Greenfield & Chimicles, Haverford, PA, Howard A. Specter, Pittsburgh, PA, for appellants.
Richard L. Posen (argued), Willkie Farr & Gallagher, New York City, John J. Barry, Clapp & Eisenberg, P.C., Newark, NJ, Stuart J. Baskin (argued), Shearman & Sterling, New York City, for appellees.
Before: BECKER, ALITO, Circuit Judges and ATKINS, District Judge. *
This is an appeal from orders of the district court for the District of New Jersey dismissing a number of complaints brought under various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by a class of investors who purchased bonds to provide financing for the acquisition and completion of the Taj Mahal, a lavish casino/hotel on the boardwalk in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The defendants are Donald J. Trump ("Trump"), Robert S. Trump, Harvey S. Freeman, the Trump Organization Inc., Trump Taj Mahal Inc., Taj Mahal Funding Inc. and Trump Taj Mahal Associates Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") 1 (collectively the "Trump defendants") and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Inc. ("Merrill Lynch"). The complaints allege that the prospectus accompanying the issuance of the bonds contained affirmatively misleading statements and materially misleading omissions in contravention of the federal securities laws.
The district court dismissed the securities law claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The linchpin of the district court's decision was what has been described as the "bespeaks caution" doctrine, according to which a court may determine that the inclusion of sufficient cautionary statements in a prospectus renders misrepresentations and omissions contained therein nonactionable. While the viability of the bespeaks caution doctrine is an issue of first impression for this court, we believe that it primarily represents new nomenclature rather than substantive change in the law. As we see it, "bespeaks caution" is essentially shorthand for the well-established principle that a statement or omission must be considered in context, so that accompanying statements may render it immaterial as a matter of law.
We believe that the bespeaks caution doctrine is both viable and applicable to the facts of this appeal. The prospectus here took considerable care to convey to potential investors the extreme risks inherent in the venture while simultaneously carefully alerting the investors to a variety of obstacles the Taj Mahal would face, all of which were relevant to a potential investor's decision concerning purchase of the bonds. We conclude that, given these warning signals in the text of the prospectus itself, the plaintiffs cannot establish that a reasonable investor would find the alleged misstatements and omissions material to his or her decision to invest in the Taj Mahal. Hence we will affirm the district court's orders.
Inasmuch as some plaintiffs filed their complaints in other districts, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") transferred them to the district court for the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (as opposed to a transfer for all purposes, such as under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 1406), the question arises whether the district court possessed authority to issue dispositive pre-trial orders terminating the cases so transferred. It seems to be widely accepted that § 1407 and the rules promulgated thereunder empower a transferee court to enter dispositive orders to terminate a case, but there is no reported case law so holding. We take this opportunity to confirm the power of the transferee court to enter a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
In November, 1988 the Trump defendants offered to the public $675 million in first mortgage investment bonds (the "bonds") with Merrill Lynch acting as the sole underwriter. The interest rate on the bonds was 14%, a high rate in comparison to the 9% yield offered on quality corporate bonds at the time. The Trump defendants issued the bonds to raise capital to: (1) purchase the Taj Mahal, a partially-completed casino/hotel located on the boardwalk, from Resorts International, Inc. (which had already invested substantial amounts in its construction); (2) complete construction of the Taj Mahal; and (3) open the Taj Mahal for business.
As is well-known, the Taj Mahal was widely touted as Atlantic City's largest and most lavish casino resort. When ultimately opened in April, 1990 it was at least twice the size of any other casino in Atlantic City. It consisted of a 42-story hotel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Nazi Era Cases against German Defendants
...transferor forum "close consideration." See, In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171 (D.C.Cir.1987); In re Donald Trump Casino Securities Litigation, 7 F.3d 357, 368 n. 8 (assuming without deciding that law of the transferee district controls federal questions but law of transferor d......
-
In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liab. Lit.
...(stating that the transferee judge is empowered to rule on motions for summary judgment) (citing In re Trump Casino Sec. Litig. — Taj Mahal Litig., 7 F.3d 357, 367-68 (3d Cir.1993)). At this point, the court notes that, consistent with its findings in the first bellwether case, the claims o......
-
Saudi Basic Industries Corporation v. Exxonmobil Corporation
...upon. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993); In re Donald J. Trump Casino Sec. Litig., 7 F.3d 357, 368 n. 9 (3d Cir. 1993). Because SABIC has relied on the contents of Exxon's pleadings, together with the documents expressly referenced......
-
Saudi Basic Industries Corp. v. Exxonmobil Corp.
...upon. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993); In re Donald J. Trump Casino Sec. Litig., 7 F.3d 357, 368 n. 9 (3d Cir. 1993). Because SABIC has relied on the contents of Exxon's pleadings, together with the documents expressly referenced......
-
Supreme Court Applies 'Reasonable' Basis Standard In Clarifying Liability For Statements Of Opinion
...may be actionable misrepresentations if the speaker does not genuinely and reasonably believe them." In re Donald Trump Casino Sec. Litig., 7 F.3d 357 (3d Cir. 1993). The Tenth Circuit considered the issue last year, but declined to adopt a specific position, holding in the case before it t......
-
Rethinking Cautions Accompanying Investment Predictions
...hear any reasons to question your credibility from you first. ENDNOTES [1] E.g., In re Donald J. Trump Casino Sec. Litig.-Taj Mahal Litig., 7 F.3d 357, 371 (3d Cir. 1993). [2]15 U.S.C. §§ 77z-2, 78u-5. [3] 575 U.S. 175 (2115). This post comes to us from Professor Franklin A. Gevurtz at the ......
-
Securities fraud.
...of reliance when the misrepresentation did not affect the company's stock price). (305.) See generally In re Donald J. Trump Sec. Litig. 7 F.3d 357, 371 (3d Cir. 1993) (applying the "bespeaks caution" (306.) See Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 916 F.3d 946, 947- 48 (9th C......
-
Table of Cases
...1994), 124 Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., In re , 141 F.R.D. 556 (N.D. Ga. 1992), 61 Donald J. Trump Casino Sec. Litig., In re , 7 F.3d 357 (3d Cir. 1993), 171 Donovan v. Fitzsimmons, 90 F.R.D. 583 (N.D. Ill. 1981), 153 Doster v. Carl Schenk A.G., 141 F.R.D. 50 (M.D.N.C. 1991), 193,......
-
Securities fraud.
...discovery in the hopes of obtaining an increased settlement." (citation omitted)). (294.) See generally In re Donald J. Trump Sec. Litig. 7 F.3d 357, 371 (3d Cir. 1993) (applying the "bespeaks caution" (295.) See Luce v. Edelstein, 802 F.2d 49, 56 (2d Cir. 1986) (adopting "bespeaks caution"......
-
Securities fraud.
...of reliance when the misrepresentation did not affect the company's stock price). (303.) See generally In re Donald J. Trump Sec. Litig. 7 F.3d 357, 371 (3d Cir. 1993) (applying the "bespeaks caution" (304.) See Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 916 F.3d 946, 947-48 (9th Ci......