ING Groep N.V. : Perpetual Hybrid Capital Securities

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

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

ING Groep N.V. : Perpetual Hybrid Capital Securities Summary: According to a press release dated February 5, 2009, the complaint alleges that defendants consummated the Offerings pursuant to the false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectuses. Specifically, ING sold 41,800,000 6.375% Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of over $1 billion in the June 2007 Offering and 80 million 8.50% Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of approximately $2.0 billion in the June 2008 Offering. The Registration Statement/Prospectuses incorporated ING’s financial results for 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. Then, after the Offerings were completed, ING announced $2 billion in impairment charges associated with its exposure to bad loans, mortgage-related securities and other ‘pressurized’ assets, causing the prices of the Securities issued in the Offerings to decline.

According to the complaint, the true facts which were omitted from the Registration Statement were: (a) defendants’ assets, including loans and mortgage-related securities, were impaired to a much larger extent than the Company had disclosed; (b) defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; (c) the Company’s internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting the value of its assets; and (d) ING was not as well capitalized as represented, and, notwithstanding the billions of dollars raised in the Offerings, the Company would have to raise an additional $10 billion by selling equity in the Company to the Dutch government.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who acquired the 6.375% Securities and/or the 8.50% Securities of ING pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company’s June 2007 and June 2008 Offerings (the ‘Class’).

NOTE: On February 17, 2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who acquired the 7.375% ING Perpetual Hybrid Capital.

On March 30, 2009, the action was voluntarily dismissed against the defendant Ernst & Young LLP. On April 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed several motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On May 19, 2009, Judge Loretta A. Preska consolidated the actions and appointed Belmont Holdings Corporation and Marshall Freidus as Lead Plaintiffs for the Class. The law firms of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and the Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C. are appointed Lead Counsel. On September 25, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on November 5, 2009.

According to an article dated September 15, 2010, a lawsuit brought by investors who had purchased securities in three ING Group bond offerings in 2007 and 2008 was largely dismissed in a ruling issued Tuesday, although some allegations regarding the company’s June 2008 offering disclosures did survive.These rulings appeared in a September 14, 2010 order written by Southern District of New York Judge Lewis Kaplan. … In his September 14 order, Judge Kaplan addressed each of the three offerings separately, dismissing all of the allegations regarding the June 2007 and September 2007 offerings, and many of the allegations with respect to the June 2008 offering. However, Judge Kaplan denied the motion to dismiss with respect to one part of the allegations concerning the June 2008 offering.

On January 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. On March 4, 2011, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. According to the Order signed on March 29, 2011, the motion was denied without prejudice to a motion for summary judgment of dismissal.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6311
Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Life)

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	ING Groep N.V.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	ISF
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.ing.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Marshall Freidus and Edward P. Zemprelli, et al. v. ING Groep N.V., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-1049
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Loretta A. Preska
DATE FILED: 02/03/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/08/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 06/12/2008
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/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/03/2009
Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Against Ernst & Young LLP
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 03/30/2009
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/01/2009
Order Consolidating The Actions, Appointing Lead Plaintiff And Approving Selection Of Lead Counsel
Type: Order of Consolidation		Date on the document: 05/19/2009
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 07/23/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Marshall Freidus and Edward P. Zemprelli, et al. v. ING Groep N.V., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-1049
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 09/25/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/08/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 06/12/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
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 (Philadelphia) John Wanamaker Building; 100 Penn Square East, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA, 19107 (voice) 215.561.3600, (fax) 215.561.3600, susang@bernardmgross.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 09/25/2009
Memorandum Opinion
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 09/14/2010
Order
Type: Summary Judgment		Date on the document: 03/29/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/02/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Nelson Caraballo, et al. v. ING Groep N.V., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/13/2009
Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
Case Name and/or Number: Harold H. Powell Trust, et al. v. ING Groep N.V., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/17/2009
Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Jeffrey Hathorn, et al. v. ING Groep N.V., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/26/2009
Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Jeffrey Lefcourt, et al. v. ING Groep N.V., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/23/2009
Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Claude Emery, et al. v. ING Groep N.V., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/30/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Jeffrey Hathorn, et al. v. ING Groep N.V., et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/02/2009

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

�