Skip to content Skip to navigation

Investments

HSBC Logo on Wall

This is the third in a series of class action suits filed by Royal Park Investments (RPI) based on other current lawsuits. The original lawsuits each allege that a certain bank has failed to fulfill its duties as trustees to RPI funds; these secondary suits allege that the defendant banks have been paying their legal fees for the original suits out of the trusts’ funds. The complaint for this class action claims that neither the trusts’ Governing Agreements nor the common law of trusts permits HSBC to use the trusts’ funds for this purpose. As the complaint puts it, “Thus, the investors are being harmed by HSBC twice—first through HSBC’s misconduct as alleged in the Litigation, and second through HSBC’s improper and illegal use of those same damaged investors’ funds to defend itself for its misconduct.”

GE Logo

Federal law requires that most company retirement plans be managed for the sole benefits of those enrolled in the plans. But the complaint for this class action alleges that General Electric and associated entities violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) with its Retirement Savings Plan by favoring underperforming GE-related funds as investments and charging excessive management fees for GE’s profit.

City National Bank Building

Two men, Joel Barry Gillis and Edward W. Wishner, are now in prison for running NASI, a company that operated a Ponzi scheme purporting to sell ATMs to investors in return for “rentals” from ATM fees. How did they get away with it for fifteen long years? According to the complaint for this class action, they were aided and abetted by a bank Senior Vice-President who used his position as well as the bank’s credibility and resources on their behalf in exchange for profiting from the scheme. Fitzwilliam performed many services to help keep NASI in business, according to the complaint, such as granting it immediate loans to cover shortfalls to make lulling payments to investors; writing promotional letters vouching for NASI as its banker; and talking to investors who were beginning to get suspicious and assuring them that NASI was legitimate. Since all of these supportive actions were undertaken in the regular scope of his employment at CNB, the complaint claims, the bank is liable for his actions.

US Bank Sign on Building

Royal Park Investments (RPI) hired US Bank National Association as trustee for twenty-one of its residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts, but apparently was not satisfied with the bank’s performance. It is suing US Bank in a case called Royal Park Inv. SA/NV v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 1:14-cv-02590-VM—but it claims to have recently discovered that the bank has been funding its defense with money from the trusts. Under both the trusts’ Governing Agreements and the common law of trusts, the complaint for this class action says, a trustee like US Bank is not allowed to do this. The trustee is required to administer the trusts for the sole benefit of the certificate holders. The complaint thus alleges that the bank has injured the investors in the trusts twice—first, by breaching the contractual and common-law duties owed to the certificate holders, and second, by defending its misconduct with money that belongs to the certificate holders.

Wells Fargo Logo

This case is built on top of another case. Royal Park Investments (RPI) sued Well Fargo in Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:14-cv-09764-KPF-SN (S.D.N.Y.), claiming that Wells Fargo had failed to fulfill its duties as a trustee of two of RPI’s trusts, allegedly damaging RPI and the classes’ certificate holders. The complaint claims that Wells Fargo has defended itself with wasteful, inappropriate measures, “scorched earth tactics,” and “oppressive discovery.” This was mystifying to RPI, until, the complaint claims, “in early 2017, RPI became aware that Wells Fargo may have been billing the costs of defending the Litigation” to the trusts themselves. According to the complaint, Wells Fargo is not permitted to do this under either the trusts’ governing agreements or the common law of trusts.

Demolition

This class action alleges that Apollo Global Management, LLC orchestrated a fraudulent “restructuring” of CEVA Investments Limited (CIL), in breach of its fiduciary duty, that extinguished the value of shares held by its CEVA-employee investors for the benefit of Apollo. The employee investor plaintiffs believe that their losses in this restructuring amounted to more than 14 million euros.

kraken logo

Ether is a virtual currency that may be traded for normal currencies via online exchanges such as Kraken, the defendant in this case. This class action alleges that a systems problem occurred at Kraken, leading to it locking customers out of their accounts and liquidating the Ether holdings in margin accounts. Had Kraken’s systems been operating properly, the complaint contends, a number of things could have occurred that would have made it unnecessary to sell the Ether at such extremely low prices; instead, it said, it left account holders with major losses.

image of Novant Health logo

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that Novant Health, Inc. violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by breaching fiduciary duties.  Millions of dollars worth of excessive record-keeping and administrative services are among the claims that have lead Novant Health to settle for upwards of $32 million.  There are two settlement classes: former and current participants.

This securities fraud class action lawsuit alleges that KLX, Inc. violated the federal securities law by materially misrepresenting the value of its intangible assets and its goodwill associated with the Company's Energy Services Group, along with its policies and the methodology implemented to calculate goodwill, risk and asset impairment, conduct which ultimately caused significant losses to investors.

This class action lawsuit alleges that Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp. and other fiduciaries of the Deutsche Bank Matched Savings Plan breached duties imposed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by engaging in prohibited transactions and unlawful self-dealing with regard to selecting investments, to the the detriment of the Plan, its participants and beneficiaries.

Pages