Deutsche Bank AG Summary: According to a press release dated June 21, 2011, Defendants and certain of its officers and directors violated certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results and concealed the Company's failure to write down impaired securities containing mortgage-related debt. As a result of Defendants' false statements, the underlying shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $159.59 per share in May 2007. Later, the Defendant’s shares declined as it reported billions of dollars in losses, many of which were directly or indirectly related to mortgage-backed securities.
Recently, the US Department of Justice sued the Defendant for misrepresentations about its mortgage loans. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the Defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) defendants failed to record adequate provisions for losses on the deterioration in mortgage assets and collateralized debt obligations on Defendant's books caused by the high amount of non-collectible mortgages included in the Defendant’s portfolio; (b) the Defendant’s subsidiary was issuing and had issued billions of dollars of mortgage loans which did not comply with stated lending practices, leading to thousands of defaults; (c) the Defendant’s internal controls were inadequate to ensure that losses on residential mortgage-related assets were accounted for properly; and (d) the Defendant had transferred billions of dollars in defaulting, or soon-to-default, mortgages to unwitting investors and government programs due to its disregard of adverse findings by outside consultants, company said.
On December 2, 2011, the Court issued an order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.
On June 1, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On March 27, 2013, the Court issued an Order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss as to issuer defendant and certain individual defendants. The motion was granted as to a separate individual defendant.
Industry: Investment Services
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