Back

Credit Suisse Group AG

Case Details

Class Period: March 20, 2015 - February 3, 2016
Date Filed: Dec 22, 2017
Case Number: 1:17-cv-10014
Jurisdiction: Southern District of New York

Case Summary

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and risk controls.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Credit Suisse’s risk protocols and control systems were routinely disregarded (2) the Company was accumulating billions of dollars of risky, highly illiquid securities in violation of those risk protocols; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Credit Suisse’s business, operations, and risk controls were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 19, 2018,  the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Plan, Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy and Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds, Teamsters Local 456 Pension and Annuity Funds were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs for this action. Saxena White and Cohen Milstein & Toll were appointed Co-Lead Counsel.

On April 18, 2018, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint. Thereafter, on July 2, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On February 19, 2019, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs’ primary allegation—that Defendants issued false and misleading statements regarding Credit Suisse’s risk limits.

On March 6, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s February 19, 2019 Order denying their Motion to Dismiss.  On April 5, 2019, while Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration was pending, Defendants filed the Answer to the Amended Class Action Complaint.  On May 16, 2019, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, finding that Defendants failed to identify “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”

The case is now in discovery.