According to a press release dated September 29, 2008, a judge has granted class certification in a massive securities class action against Credit Suisse' U.S. operations over the glowing research it provided during Time Warner Inc.’s botched merger with AOL. Judge Nancy Gertner of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Friday appointed lead plaintiff Bricklayers and Trowel Trades International Pension Fund as class representative in the case, which targets the bank formerly known as Credit Suisse First Boston (USA) Inc. Overall, however, the courts have been split on the issue, the judge noted. “Indeed, as the court noted previously, while proving that a particular statement was material and had an impact on a stock’s market price may be more difficult for analysts' statements than for issuer statements, the identity of the speaker should not alter the legal or analytical framework,” Judge Gertner wrote.
On March 2, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.
On December 7, 2006, the Court entered the Amended Memorandum and Order signed by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.
On November 25, 2003, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed, and the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On March 8, 2005, the Court entered the Report and Recommendation, recommending that the motions to dismiss be allowed and that the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. On September 29, 2005, Judge Nancy Gertner granted the motions to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint. On December 16, 2005, a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed, and the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.
On September 3, 2003, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to consolidate several actions, granting the motion for appointment of lead plaintiff, and granting the motion for approval of lead plaintiff’s choice of lead counsel. On September 12, 2003, several New York actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the Exchange Act"), and Rule 1a0b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a series of favorable research reports on AOL that were materially false or misleading in that they did not reflect Credit Suisse's true opinion of AOL and they did not disclose conflicts of
interest of Credit Suisse. In particular, the reports did not disclose
the practice of Credit Suisse to use its research coverage as part of
its marketing efforts to gain lucrative investment banking business.
According to an administrative complaint filed by the Secretary of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on one occasion Credit Suisse issued
an analyst report stating Credit Suisse believed AOL could achieve the
earnings guidance AOL had given the market, when Credit Suisse in fact
believed (as expressed in internal communications) that AOL could not
make its numbers. The Massachusetts complaint alleges that Credit
Suisse "purposely misled investors" with its analyst reports.
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has previously filed class action securities
fraud suits against Credit Suisse on behalf of purchasers of Razorfish,
Inc. and Agilent Technologies, Inc. common stock. Shapiro Haber & Urmy
anticipates that it may be filing similar class action complaints on
behalf of investors in other companies that were also the subject of
favorable research reports by Credit Suisse.
Several similar purported class action complaints were filed in the Southern District of New York, District of Massachusetts, and the Southern District of California.
On August 26, 2011, the Court issued an Order denying the two Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment.
On January 13, 2012, a Memorandum and Order issued by the Court granted summary judgment on Counts I and II in favor of the defendants. Subsequently on January 19, 2012, a Judgment dismissing the case was entered.
On May 17, 2012, the plaintiffs’ motion for consideration was denied.
On June 13, 2012, a notice of appeal was filed by the plaintiffs. On May 14, 2014, the First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.