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


Royal Bank of Canada
Summary: According to a law firm press release, on May 12, 2008 a class action lawsuit on behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate Securities from RBC Dain Rauscher Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, and RBC Capital Markets Corporation between May 12, 2003 and February 13, 2008 (the “Class Period”), and who continued to hold such securities as of February 13, 2008. The class action is brought against Royal Bank of Canada and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, RBC Dain Rauscher Inc. and RBC Capital Markets Corporation. The Complaint alleges that RBC Dain Rauscher violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of auction rate securities and the auction market in which these securities traded. Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set at periodic “auctions.” Auction rate securities generally have long-term maturities or no maturity dates.

The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, RBC Dain Rauscher offered and sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds. According to the Complaint, holders of auction rate securities sold by RBC Dain Rauscher and other broker-dealers have been unable to liquidate their positions in these securities following the decision on February 13, 2008 of all major broker-dealers including RBC Dain Rauscher to “withdraw their support” for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction rates securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that RBC Dain Rauscher failed to disclose the following material facts about the auction rate securities it sold to the class: (1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives, like money market funds, but were instead, complex, long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity dates, or longer; (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the time of sale because RBC Dain Rauscher and other broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) RBC Dain Rauscher and other broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and (4) RBC Dain Rauscher continued to market auction rate securities as liquid investments after it had determined that it and other broker dealers were likely to withdraw their support for the periodic auctions and that a “freeze” of the market for auction rate securities would result.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6029
Sector: Financial
Industry: Money Center Banks


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Royal Bank of Canada
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: RY
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.royalbank.com/

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Brigham, et al. v. Royal Bank of Canada, et al.
 COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-4431
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. William H. Pauley, III
 DATE FILED: 5/12/2008  SOURCE: Notice of Filing
 CLASS PERIOD START: 5/12/2003  CLASS PERIOD END: 2/13/2008
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Girard Gibbs LLP
      601 California Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA, 94108
       (voice) 415.981.4800, (fax) 415.981.4846, mail@girardgibbs.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  1

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 5/12/2008
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 7/15/2008

     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