Company and Case Information

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors


Register


_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School


Credit Suisse Group
Summary: According to a press release dated April 21, 2008, the complaint charges Credit Suisse and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Credit Suisse operates as a financial services company. The Company operates in three segments: Investment Banking, Private Banking, and Asset Management.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. The complaint further alleges that defendants failed to write down impaired securities containing mortgage-related debt. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) that defendants failed to record losses on the deterioration in mortgage assets and collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) on Credit Suisse’s books caused by the high amount of non-collectible mortgages included in the portfolio; (b) that Credit Suisse’s internal controls were inadequate to ensure that losses on residential mortgage-related assets were accounted for properly; and (c) that Credit Suisse’s traders had put incorrect values on CDOs and other debt securities, concealing the exposure the Company had to losses.

On February 19, 2008, Credit Suisse announced that it had undertaken an internal review that resulted in the repricing of certain asset-backed positions in its Structured Credit Trading business. The total fair value reductions of these positions were estimated at approximately $2.85 billion. On this news, Credit Suisse’s ADRs collapsed to close at $48.22 per ADR on February 19, 2008, a decline of almost 31% from $69.61 per ADR in early October 2007.

NOTE: The class action has been commenced on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depositary Receipts of Credit Suisse Group and U.S. residents or citizens who purchased Credit Suisse stock between the Class Period.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6211
Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Credit Suisse Group
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: CS
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.credit-suisse.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Kevin Cornwell, et al. v. Credit Suisse Group, et al.
 COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-3758
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Victor Marrero
 DATE FILED: 4/21/2008  SOURCE: Notice of Filing
 CLASS PERIOD START: 2/15/2007  CLASS PERIOD END: 2/19/2008
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747
       (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/
  • Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101
       (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, info@csgrr.com/
  • Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross
      1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102
       (voice) 215-561-3600, (fax) 215-561-3000, bmgross@bernardmgross.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  3

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 4/21/2008
    US District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 4/21/2008

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Case Name and/or Number: 
    Type:  Date on the document: 

    WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
    The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
    Go to Search  page | Go to Case Index  page | Back to Top