In re Parmalat Securities Litigation
| Decision Date | 13 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04 MD 1653(LAK).,04 MD 1653(LAK). |
| Citation | 376 F.Supp.2d 472 |
| Parties | In re PARMALAT SECURITIES LITIGATION. This document relates to: 04 Civ. 0030. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
S. Willis, Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Joshua S. Devore, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
George A. Schieren, Mark A. Kirsch, Mark Holland, Jeff E. Butler, David Cook, Clifford Chance U.S. LLP, New York City, for the Citigroup Defendants.
Joseph B. Tompkins, Jr., A. Robert Pietrzak, Thomas McC. Souther, Daniel A. McLaughlin, Alan C. Geolot, Mark P. Guerrera, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, Washington, DC, for Bank of America Defendants.
Michael S. Feldberg, Todd S. Fishman, Kelly A. Berkell, Allen & Overy LLP, New York City, for Defendant Credit Suisse First Boston.
Howard A. Ellins, Nancy B. Ludmerer, Antoinette G. Ellison, Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York City, for Defendant Banca Nazionale del Lavoro S.p.A.
The plaintiffs in these consolidated class actions were investors in the securities of the international dairy conglomerate Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. and subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively "Parmalat"). They allege that Parmalat's officers, directors, accountants, lawyers, and banks made representations and structured transactions that operated to defraud Parmalat's investors in violation of Sections 10(b)1 and 20(a)2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-53 thereunder.
This opinion addresses the motions of the defendant banks to dismiss the actions as to them pursuant to Rules 12(b) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They require consideration of, among other issues, the contours of subsections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5, which prohibit "any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud" and "any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person" in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.
As described in an earlier opinion,4 the plaintiffs purport to represent classes of persons who purchased Parmalat securities from January 5, 1999 to December 18, 2003 (the "Class Period.").5 The 368-page amended consolidated complaint details various fraudulent acts allegedly perpetrated by Parmalat and the defendants.
Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank"), and their subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively "Citigroup"), are alleged "knowingly and actively [to have] participated in the fraudulent scheme" and to have had "intimate knowledge" of Parmalat's finances through its "close relationship with its important client" and its "direct participation in the fraudulent activities."6 The complaint describes three specific arrangements involving Citigroup.
The first involved Citigroup's purchase and securitization of allegedly worthless invoices.7
Under agreements entered into in 1995, 1999, 2000, and 2001, invoices for goods sold by various Parmalat subsidiaries were purchased by defendant Eureka Securitisation plc ("Eureka"), a Citigroup affiliate, as well as by Eureka's wholly-owned Italian subsidiary, Archimede Securitization S.r.l. ("Archimede"). Archimede and Eureka then sold commercial paper secured by the invoices.8 This securitization alone would appear to have been neither unusual nor deceptive.
The deception allegedly stemmed from Parmalat's billing system, under which many of the invoices were in effect duplicates that did not represent anything actually due. Parmalat supplied supermarkets and other retailers through a network of wholesale dealers. These dealers were invoiced for each delivery and typically paid Parmalat the full amount of the invoices. The dealers sometimes sold to retailers on their own account and sometimes distributed Parmalat's products to supermarkets on Parmalat's behalf. In the latter case, the dealer would furnish to Parmalat proof of delivery to the supermarket. Parmalat then would issue a second invoice, this one directly to the supermarket, and undertake to reimburse the dealer for the goods it distributed to the supermarket. In other words, when a dealer acted purely as Parmalat's distributor, amounts that the dealer owed Parmalat for goods distributed for Parmalat were offset by Parmalat's corresponding obligation to reimburse the dealer.9 Like the securitization of receivables, there appears to have been nothing remarkable or deceptive about this billing system — which the complaint implies had been used for forty years10 — standing alone.
The problem was that Parmalat assigned to Archimedes and Eureka, and they then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Aegean Marine Petroleum Network, Inc. Sec. Litig.
...Energy Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 15 Civ. 3020, 2017 WL 1319802, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2017) (citing In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 376 F. Supp. 2d 472, 491-92 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ) (internal quotation marks omitted). With respect to pleading requirements, "[b]ecause scheme liability does not requir......
-
In re Enron Corp. Securities
...Inc., 519 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir.2008); Benzon v. Morgan Stanley Distributors, Inc., 420 F.3d 598, 610 (6th Cir.2005); In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 376 F.Supp.2d 472 (S.D.N.Y.2005); In re Global Crossing Ltd. Sec. Litig., 322 F.Supp.2d 319 (S.D.N.Y.2004); In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 294 F.......
-
S.E.C. v. Dorozhko
...the Supreme Court used to define "device" in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder—in order to define "deceptive," In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, 376 F.Supp.2d 472, 502 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (defining "deceptive" as "[t]ending to deceive; having power to mislead"). But Parmalat's approach has been sc......
-
Ranieri v. Advocare Int'l, L.P.
...the plaintiff's injuries." In re Enron Corp. Sec. , 529 F.Supp.2d 644, 678 n.45 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (citing In re Parmalat Sec. Litig. , 376 F.Supp.2d 472, 491-92 & n.90 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ). Because AdvoCare does not address Plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) claims in its Motion to Dismiss, the ......
-
The First Circuit's Flannery Decision Leaves Unresolved the Validity of the SEC's Attempt to Expand the Reach of Sections 10(b) AND 17(a)
...claims inFlannerywere only for primary liability under Section 10(b). 37 236 F. Supp. 2d 161 (D. Mass. 2003). 38 Id.at 173-74. 39 376 F. Supp. 2d 472, 502-03 (S.D.N.Y. 40 SEC Decision, 2014 WL 7145625, at *16 n.69. 41 SEC Decision, 2014 WL 7145625, at *14-15. 42 817 F. Supp. 2d 340 (S.D.N.Y......
-
Transnational class actions and interjurisdictional preclusion.
...of naming a foreign investor as the lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, see In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 376 F. Supp. 2d 472, 493-503 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); In re Royal Ahold N.V. Sec. & ERISA Litig., 219 F.R.D. 343, 352-53 (D. Md. 2003); In re Cable & Wirele......