Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank Ag

Decision Date08 September 2003
Docket NumberNos. Civ.024845(RJL/AJB), CIV023682(RJL/AJB), CIV023711(RHK/AJB).,s. Civ.024845(RJL/AJB), CIV023682(RJL/AJB), CIV023711(RHK/AJB).
Citation282 F.Supp.2d 1032
PartiesJames P. STEPHENSON, Trustee, (02-4845) Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc., (02-3682) E*Trade Securities, LLC, (02-3711) Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE BANK AG, et. al., (02-4845) Deutsche Bank Securities Ltd., et al., (02-3682) Deutsche Bank AG, et. al., (02-3711) Defendants.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Robert L. Schnell, Jr., James L. Volling, Stephen M. Mertz, Jason K. Walbourn, Jesseca R.F. Grassley, Theodore R. Cheesebrough, Faegre & Benson LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff James P. Stephenson, Liquidating Trustee of MJK Clearing, Inc.

Terrence M. Fruth, Thomas E. Jamison, K. Jon Breyer, Fruth, Jamison & Elsass, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, Charles S. Fax, Richard A. Kirby, Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler, Washington, DC, Daniel Marino, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc.

Terrence M. Fruth, Thomas E. Jamison, K. Jon Breyer, Fruth Jamison & Elsass, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, Marc T.G. Dworsky, Richard C. St. John, James C. Rutten, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Dennis C. Brown, for Plaintiff E*Trade Securities, Inc.

Michael J. Bleck, Michael E. Keyes, David E. Runck, Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly LLP, Minneapolis, MN, James H.R. Windels, Jodi Golinsky, Michael J. Russano, Catheryn A. O'Rourke, Laura Laux Higgens, Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, NY, for Defendants Deutsche Bank Securities Limited, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., and Deutsche Bank AG.

Teresa J. Kimker, Halleland Lewis Nilan Sipkins & Johnson, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, Richard M. Strassberg, Jeffrey A. Simes, Eric D. Musselman, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant Wayne Breedon.

Madge S. Thorsen, Daniel C. Bryden, Kelly & Berens, Minneapolis, MN, Michael J. Dell, Amy Busa, Lauren Freeman-Bosworth, Jonathan M. Wagner, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY, Richard M. Sharfman, Laurence Greenwald, Michele L. Pahmer, Beth Webber, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants Nomura Canada, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., and Scott Reed.

J. Patrick McDavitt, Julie H. Firestone, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, Joel S. Forman, Karen Lee, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, New York, NY, for Defendant James Smith.

Jonathan M. Harris, Terrence J. Fleming, Eric J. Peck, Lindquist & Vennum P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.

John M. Degnan, Murnane, Conlin, White & Brandt, St. Paul, MN, Dominic F. Amorosa, Amorosa Law Office, New York, NY, Michael Q. Carey, Carey & Associates, New York, NY, for Defendant Richard Evangelista.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

KYLE, District Judge.

                Table of Contents1
                Introduction ........................................................... 1041
                
                Background ...................................................................... 1042
                        I. Introduction.......................................................... 1042
                       II. The Parties .......................................................... 1042
                           A. Plaintiffs ........................................................ 1042
                           B. Defendants ........................................................ 1043
                      III. Factual Background ................................................... 1044
                           A. Securities Lending ................................................ 1044
                           B. The Stock Manipulation Scheme ..................................... 1045
                              1. The GENI Scheme ................................................ 1046
                              2. MJK Is Brought into the Transactions ........................... 1047
                              3. Fraud at Native Nations ........................................ 1048
                              4. Deutsche Bank Lessens Its Exposure ............................. 1048
                              5. The GENI for ICII Switch ....................................... 1049
                              6. Nomura Lessens Its Exposure .................................... 1050
                           C. The Scheme Collapses .............................................. 1050
                       IV. Procedural Background ................................................ 1051
                           A. The Amended Complaints ............................................ 1051
                              1. James P. Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al., Civ. No. 02-4845
                                   (RHK/AJB) .................................................... 1051
                              2. Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank Securities Limited
                                   et al., Civ. No. 02-3682 (RHK/AJB) ........................... 1052
                              3. E*Trade Securities, LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, Civ. No. 02-3711
                                   (RHK/AJB) .................................................... 1052
                           B. Motions Before the Court .......................................... 1052
                              1. James P. Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al., Civ. No. 02-4845
                                   (RHK/AJB) .................................................... 1052
                              2. Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank Securities Limited
                                   et al., Civ. No. 02-3682 (RHK/AJB) ........................... 1053
                              3. E*Trade Securities, LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, Civ. No. 02-3711
                                   (RHK/AJB) .................................................... 1053
                Standard of Decision ............................................................ 1054
                Analysis ........................................................................ 1054
                        I. Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b ........... 1055
                           A. Market Manipulation ............................................... 1056
                           B. Statements and Omissions .......................................... 1057
                           C. Conclusion ........................................................ 1058
                       II. Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 ............................ 1058
                      III. Common Law Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation ..................... 1060
                           A. Common Law Fraud .................................................. 1060
                           B. Negligent Misrepresentation ....................................... 1061
                       IV. Section 12(a)(1) of the 1933 Securities Act .......................... 1062
                           A. Sellers and Solicitors ............................................ 1062
                           B. Statute of Limitations ............................................ 1064
                              1. One-Year Limitations Period .................................... 1064
                              2. Three-Year Limitations Period .................................. 1064
                           C. Sales and Defenses ................................................ 1065
                           D. Conclusion ........................................................ 1066
                        V. Section 11 of the 1933 Securities Act ................................ 1066
                       VI. Section 9 of the Exchange Act of 1934 ................................ 1066
                           A. Statute of Limitations ............................................ 1067
                           B. Substantive Challenges ............................................ 1067
                      VII. Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act ........................... 1068
                     VIII. Civil Conspiracy ..................................................... 1070
                       IX. RICO and the Reform Act .............................................. 1071
                        X. Personal Jurisdiction ................................................ 1072
                       XI. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) .............................. 1074
                
                Conclusion....................................................... 1075
                
Introduction

These matters come before the Court on Defendants' motions to dismiss. In these three related actions, Plaintiffs James P. Stephenson, as trustee in bankruptcy for MJK Clearing ("the Trustee"), Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. ("FBW"), and E*Trade Securities LLC ("E*Trade") have separately sued Defendants Deutsche Bank AG ("Deutsche Bank AG"), Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. ("Deutsche Bank Securities"), Deutsche Bank Securities Limited ("Deutsche Bank SL"), Wayne Breedon, Nomura Canada, Inc. ("Nomura Canada"),2 Nomura Securities International, Inc. ("Nomura"),2 Scott Reed,2 RBF International, Inc. ("RBF"), Kenneth D'Angelo, Richard Evangelista, GenesisIntermedia, Inc. ("GENI"),3 Ramy El-Batrawi, Ultimate Holdings, Ltd. ("Ultimate Holdings"), Adnan Khashoggi, Bradford Keiller,3 James Smith,2 and A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. ("A.G. Edwards").45

Plaintiffs allege Defendants perpetrated or financed "a wide-ranging and sophisticated securities loan and market manipulation scheme" (Trustee Am. Compl. ¶ 1), that "resulted in the largest failure of a U.S. brokerage firm in at least 30 years" (E*Trade Am. Compl. at 1), producing "losses totaling in excess of $100 million." (FBW Am. Compl. ¶ 2.) As alleged by E*Trade:

What makes this story shocking, even in this post-Enron era, is not the quantum of greed involved, the involvement of a headline grabbing cast of characters including the notorious Saudi arms-dealer Adnan Khashoggi, or the scent of money laundering, but rather the sheer audacity and scope of the fraud .... involv[ing] the deliberate, orchestrated participation of at least a dozen people in manipulating, again in highly coordinated fashion, the market for the securities of at least three separate companies, over a period of two years.6

(E*Trade Am. Compl. at 1.)

Plaintiffs assert a variety of claims against Defendants under federal and state securities law, state consumer statutes, common law, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. In response to Plaintiffs' overlapping Amended...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.C. v. Rite Aid Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • February 9, 2021
    ...Co. , No. 11-cv-0947 (PJS/FLN), 2012 WL 3430735, at *3 (D. Minn. Aug. 14, 2012) (Schiltz, J.); Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank AG , 282 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1061–62 (D. Minn. 2003) (Kyle, J.); see also Kellogg Square P'ship v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 63 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1995) (same). A......
  • Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A. (In re Petters Co., Inc.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Minnesota
    • February 24, 2017
    ...Shorthorn Ass'n, 402 F.3d 833, 836 (8th Cir. 2005).44 State by Head, 293 Minn. at 347, 199 N.W.2d 444.45 See Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank AG, 282 F.Supp.2d 1032, 1066 (D. Minn. 2003).46 State by Head, 293 Minn. at 347, 199 N.W.2d 444.47 See e.g. In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC., 721 F.......
  • Deangelis v. Corzine (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 12, 2013
    ...allegations of wrongdoing, are themselves proof that Defendants have notice of the claims against them. See Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank AG, 282 F.Supp.2d 1032, 1075 (D.Minn.2003) (relying on the defendants' motions to dismiss to find that complaint “effectively alerted Defendants of the cla......
  • Schuster v. Anderson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • December 22, 2005
    ...provides the necessary nexus between the challenged conduct and the plaintiffs suffered economic loss. Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank AG, 282 F.Supp.2d 1032, 1058 (D.Minn.2003). Thus, a plaintiff must prove that the pecuniary injury is directly attributable to the wrongful conduct. Id. However......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • State Consumer Protection Laws
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2016
    ...case that “involved plaintiffs who were, in effect, indirect consumers of the defendant’s products”); Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank AG, 282 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1070-71 (D. Minn. 2003) (dismissing claims because plaintiffs were “merchants”, as defined under the Minnesota Uniform Commercial Code,......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2016
    ...16:23:59 TABLE OF CASES 1529 Stenberg v. Consumer’s Choice Foods, 755 N.W.2d 583 (Neb. 2008), 988 Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank AG, 282 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (D. Minn. 2003), 949 Sterk v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 2012 WL 5197901 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 17, 2012), 273 Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 6......

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