In re Lehman Bros. Sec. & Erisa Litig.
| Decision Date | 27 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 09 MC 2017(LAK).,09 MC 2017(LAK). |
| Citation | 799 F.Supp.2d 258 |
| Parties | In re LEHMAN BROTHERS SECURITIES AND ERISA LITIGATION.This document applies to:In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, 08 Civ. 5523(LAK). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Max W. Berger, Steven B. Singer, Boaz A. Weinstein, David R. Stickney, Elizabeth P. Lin, Jon F. Worm, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, David Kessler, John A. Kehoe, Benjamin J. Hinerfeld, John J. Gross, Richard A. Russo, Jr., Nichole Browning, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP, Co–Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Patricia M. Hynes, Todd Fishman, Allen & Overy LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Richard S. Fuld, Jr.
David R. Boyd, Jonathan P. Krisbergh, Boise, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Incapital LLC.Audrey Strauss, Israel David, Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Joseph M. Gregory.Mark P. Ressler, Michael Hanin, Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, Attorneys for Defendant HVB Capital Markets, Inc.Michael J. Chepiga, Mary Elizabeth McGarry, Erika Burk, Bryce A. Pashler, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Christopher M. O'Meara and Joseph M. Gregory.Mitchell A. Lowenthal, Meredith E. Kotler, Victor L. Hou, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Attorneys for All Underwriter Defendants Except HVB Capital Markets, Inc. and Incapital LLC.Marshall R. King, Oliver M. Olanoff, Julie I. Smith, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Attorneys for Defendant UBS Financial Services, Inc.Kelly M. Hnatt, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Ian Lowitt.Robert J. Cleary, Dietrich L. Snell, Mark E. Davidson, Seth D. Fier, Proskauer Rose LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Erin Callan.Andrew J. Levander, Kathleen N. Massey, Adam J. Wasserman, Dechert LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Michael L. Ainslie, John F. Akers, Roger S. Berlind, Thomas H. Cruikshank, Marsha Johnson Evans, Sir Christopher Gent, Roland A. Hernandez, Henry Kaufman, and John D. Macomber.Miles N. Ruthberg, Jamie L. Wine, Kevin H. Metz, Peter A. Wald, Latham & Watkins LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Ernst & Young LLP.
The September 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Lehman”) disrupted the entire economy and greatly affected owners of the company's securities. This case concerns more than $31 billion in Lehman debt and equity securities issued pursuant to a May 30, 2006 shelf registration statement (the “Registration Statement”), a base prospectus of the same date, and various prospectus, product, and pricing supplements (collectively, the “Offering Materials”), which incorporated by reference several of Lehman's SEC filings.
Plaintiffs are pension funds, companies, and individuals, each of which purchased some of these securities. They sue Lehman's former officers, directors, and auditors, as well as underwriters of the securities, under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 1 (“Securities Act”) and Lehman's former officers and auditors under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 2 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b–5 thereunder.3 The complaint 4 alleges that the Offering Materials were false and misleading because they incorporated by reference Lehman's financial statements, which in turn contained misleading statements and omissions concerning Lehman's (1) use of “Repo 105” transactions and their effect on Lehman's reported net leverage, (2) risk management policies, (3) liquidity risk, (4) concentrations of credit risk, and (5) the value of Lehman's commercial real estate holdings. It alleges also that certain of Lehman's former officers made false and misleading oral statements about most of these subjects.
The matter is before the Court on defendants' motions to dismiss the TAC for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.5
Plaintiffs are pension funds, companies, and individuals each of which purchased Lehman common stock or other Lehman securities, including structured products like principal protection notes (“PPNs”), issued pursuant to the Offering Materials. The Court has appointed the Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association (“ACERA”), the Government of Guam Retirement Fund (“GGRF”), the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee (“NILGOSC”), the City of Edinburgh Council as Administering Authority of the Lothian Pension Fund (“Lothian”), and the Operating Engineers Local 3 Trust Fund (“Operating Engineers”) as lead plaintiffs.6 They sue both under (1) the Securities Act, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities listed in TAC Appendices A and B, and (2) the Exchange Act, allegedly on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Lehman common stock and call options, or who sold put options, between June 12, 2007, and September 15, 2008 (the “Class Period”).
There are four categories of defendants in this case.
The Insider Defendants are five of Lehman's former officers: Richard S. Fuld, Jr., Christopher M. O'Meara, Joseph M. Gregory, Erin Callan, and Ian Lowitt. Fuld was Lehman's chairman and chief executive officer at all relevant times. 7 O'Meara was its chief financial officer, controller and executive vice president from 2004 until December 1, 2007, when he became global head of risk management.8 Gregory was Lehman's president and chief operating officer until June 12, 2008.9 Callan served as its chief financial officer and executive vice president from ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control Dist. v. Fuld (In re Lehman Bros. Sec. & Erisa Litig.)
...action brought on behalf of purchasers of Lehman debt and equity securities, In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation (“ E/D Class Action ”), amended their complaint to take advantage of the wealth of factual material in the Examiner's Report, which resulted in these plaintif......
-
Deangelis v. Corzine (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)
...European sovereign debt. Under those circumstances, Plaintiffs have alleged material misstatements. See In re Lehman Bros. Sec. & Erisa Litig., 799 F.Supp.2d 258, 284–85 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (finding similar statement actionable in light of allegations that company “routinely exceeded various ris......
-
In re Braskem S.A. Sec. Litig.
...causal link between the alleged misconduct and the economic harm ultimately suffered by the plaintiff." In re Lehman Bros. Sec. & Erisa Litig., 799 F.Supp.2d 258, 304 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). "To make out loss causation, ‘a plaintiff must allege ... that the subje......
-
Miller Inv. Trust v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
...York, have concluded that statements regarding GAAS compliance in an audit report are opinions.20 See In re Lehman Bros. Sec. & ERISA Litig. , 799 F.Supp.2d 258, 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("[Auditor's] statement regarding GAAS compliance inherently was one of opinion."); see also In re Colonial B......
-
Toward a public enforcement model for directors' duty of oversight.
...in their companies' financial statements during the run-up to the crisis. See In, re Lehman Bros. Sec. & ERISA Litig., 799 F. Supp. 2d 258, 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (claiming that directors knew of false and misleading statements relating to Lehman's Repo 105 transactions); In re Citigroup I......