Skip to content Skip to navigation

Securities Frauds

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.”

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.


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.

Janus Capital Merger Review

This investigation focuses on the pending merger between Janus Capital Group and the Henderson Group plc.

This investigation focuses on the pending merger between TubeMogul and Adobe.


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.

The complaint for this class action alleges that InvenSense concealed the adverse effects the company would experience as a result of its agreement with Apple to supply sensors for the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus at heavily discounted prices.

This securities class action alleges that Dawson Geophysical Company (DWSN), its board, and TGC, Inc. breached their duties in connection with their attempt to consummate a merger pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price. The complaint alleges that the merger agreement includes an unfair share-replacement arrangement and a misleading S-4 filing.

This securities class action lawsuit alleges that defendant VimpelCom made false and misleading statements about its business and prospects and also failed to disclose material facts concerning its payment of unlawful bribes in order to secure the company's access to Uzbekistan's telecommunications market and the fact that those actions led to probes and criminal investigations by the SEC, Dutch authorities and the U.S. Department of Justice.