|
 |
| 2002 News and Press Releases |
|
|
HEADLINE ARCHIVED:
Securities Fraud Suit Against Deutsche Bank To Continue In S.D.N.Y.
By: Staff Writer
Derivatives Litigation Reporter. April 8, 2002
_________________________________________________________________________
Excerpt: A New York federal court has refused to grant summary judgment to Deutsche Bank in a class action accusing the bank of securities law violations. The court said issues of fact exist as to the correct translation of comments made in German by a company officer concerning a merger with Bankers Trust Corporation. Buxbaum et al. v. Deutsche Bank et al., No. 98 CIV. 8460(JGK) (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2002). Hadassa Buxbaum filed suit against Deutsche Bank and one of its officers, Rolf-Ernst Breuer, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, raising causes of action for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. @ @ 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. She sought to represent a class of investors who sold either Bankers Trust Corp. common stock or call options, or who bought the company's put options, between Oct. 26, 1998, and Nov. 20, 1998. Buxbaum claimed that when Breuer gave an interview to a German publication he stated that Deutsche Bank was not in takeover talks with Bankers Trust. The first trading day after the publication of the interview saw Bankers Trust's stock price fall 6 percent below the previous closing price, whereas during the previous week, when reports circulated that the banks were in merger negotiations, the stock price had risen. However, on Nov. 23, 1998, the companies announced they were in the advanced stages of merger negotiations, and Bankers Trust's stock price rose 9 percent higher than its previous closing price. Buxbaum claimed that Breuer's statements in the interview were knowingly false and misleading and adversely affected the stock price during the class period. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Breuer's statement was true and could not constitute a false statement or material omission giving rise to liability under the Exchange Act. They also asserted that the plaintiffs could not establish scienter.
|
|
|
