• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
Download
 
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK------------------------------------------------------:
Securities and Exchange Commission,
:
 Plaintiff,
: Filed Electronically
v.
: No. 09 Civ. 6829 (JSR):
Bank of America Corporation,
:
 Defendant.
:
 
------------------------------------------------------R
EPLY
M
EMORANDUM OF
L
AW ON
B
EHALF OF
B
ANK OF
A
MERICA
C
ORPORATION
 
Lewis J. LimanShawn J. ChenC
LEARY
G
OTTLIEB
S
TEEN
& H
AMILTON
LLPOne Liberty PlazaNew York, New York 10006-1470Tel.: (212) 225-2000Fax: (212) 225-3999Attorneys for Defendant Bank of AmericaCorporationDated: September 9, 2009
 
.
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.............................................................................................. ii-ivINTRODUCTION AND RESPONSE TO AUGUST 25 ORDER..................................... 1ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 5A. There Was No Misleading Statement Or Omission InThe Proxy Statement................................................................................... 51. The Proxy Statement Did Not State That MerrillLynch Would Not Pay Incentive Compensation............................ 52. The Proxy Statement, Read As A Whole, LeftNo Doubt That Merrill Lynch EmployeesWould Receive Incentive Compensation........................................ 63. The Proxy Statement Did Not Contain AnActionable Omission....................................................................... 104. There Are Substantial Grounds To ConcludeThe Remainder Of The SEC’s Arguments Would Fail.................. 145. The Case Law Does Not Support TheSEC’s Arguments............................................................................ 16B. Any Alleged Misstatement Or Omission Was Not Material...................... 19C. The SEC Asserts No Scienter-Based Claim, And AnySuch Claim Would Have No Basis In Fact................................................. 26CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... 27
 
.ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)
 
Cases
GAF Corp. v. Heyman,
 
724 F.2d 727 (2d Cir. 1983)................................................................................................ 20-21Glazer Capital Mgmt. v. Magistri,
 
549 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2008).............................................................................................. 16, 17, 18In re Keyspan Corp. Sec. Litig.,
 
383 F. Supp. 2d 358 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)................................................................................ 20In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Sec. Litig.,
 
289 F. Supp. 2d 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)................................................................................. 21John Doe Co. v. United States,350 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2003)................................................................................................ 2-3Matsumura v. Benihana Nat’l Corp.,
 
542 F. Supp. 2d 245 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)................................................................................. 17Miteva v. Third-Point Mgmt. Co.,
 
218 F.R.D. 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)........................................................................................ 2Murray v. Xerox Corp.,
 
811 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1987)................................................................................................ 17Nat’l Educ. Corp. v. Martin,
 
No. 93 C 6247, 1994 WL 233661 (N.D. Ill. May 26, 1994).............................................. 2Olkey v. Hyperion 1999 Term Trust, Inc.,
 
98 F.3d 2 (2d Cir. 1996)...................................................................................................... 6Pritchard v. County of Erie (In re County of Erie),
 
546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008)................................................................................................ 2Ravens v. Republic N.Y. Corp.,
 
No. 99-cv-4981, 2002 WL 1969651 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2002)........................................... 19Rodman v. Grant Found.,608 F.2d 64 (2d Cir. 1979).................................................................................................. 21
Page(s)
of 00

Commenting has been disabled.