Deutsche Bank Investors Defeat Motion to Dismiss in Securities Class Action
In an order dated July 25, 2016, the Honorable Deborah A. Batts of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York largely denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in In re Deutsche Bank AG Sec. Litig. The securities case stems from six putative class actions that were consolidated in 2009 and alleges that the class was misled by Deutsche Bank regarding a series of securities offerings between October 2006 and May 2008, in which false and/or misleading offering materials were used to sell $5.4 billion of preferred securities in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The case alleges that before the offerings, defendants had prior knowledge that they were required to disclose many material facts, including the bank’s €20 billion exposure to high-risk subprime and nonprime residential mortgage markets through RMBS and CDO assets, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, SEC regulations and International Financial Reporting Standards.
The lawsuit was previously dismissed in August 2012, leading plaintiffs to appeal to the Second Circuit. In July 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, which led plaintiffs to petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the Deutsche Bank case to the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund. The Second Circuit then vacated the district court’s judgment in July 2015. In the most recent opinion issued Monday, the court partially upheld investors’ claims regarding 1933 Act allegations related to Deutsche’s material omissions.
Robbins Geller attorneys Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld, Mario Alba Jr., Eric. I Niehaus, Lucas F. Olts, Christopher D. Stewart and Kevin S. Sciarani, along with co-counsel, are litigating the case on behalf of plaintiffs.
In re Deutsche Bank AG Sec. Litig., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96741 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2016)