Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Refco - opinion denying motion to dismiss by Grant Thornton, LLP

Refco - opinion denying motion to dismiss by Grant Thornton, LLP

Ratings: (0)|Views: 182|Likes:
Published by George W. Conk
excerpt from opinion of April 30, 2007 by Judge Lynch, allowing claims against auditor Grant Thornton to proceed. 503 F. Supp. 2d 611
excerpt from opinion of April 30, 2007 by Judge Lynch, allowing claims against auditor Grant Thornton to proceed. 503 F. Supp. 2d 611

More info:

Published by: George W. Conk on Feb 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/24/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Page 1503 F. Supp. 2d 611, *; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31969, **1 of 6 DOCUMENTSCautionAs of: Feb 01, 2011
In re REFCO, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION05 Civ. 8626 (GEL)UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFNEW YORK 
503 F. Supp. 2d 611
;
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31969
April 30, 2007, DecidedApril 30, 2007, FiledSUBSEQUENT HISTORY:
Related proceeding at
 Am. Fin. Int'l Group-Asia, L.L.C. v. Bennett, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43508 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2007)
Transferred to
 In re Refco Secs. Litig., 530 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95362 (J.P.M.L., 2007)
Claim dismissed by
 In re Refco, Inc. Secs. Litig., 2008U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62543 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2008)
PRIOR HISTORY:
 In re Refco, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 927 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2007)
COUNSEL:
[**1] John P. Coffey, Max W. Berger,Salvatore J. Graziano, John C. Browne, and Jeremy P.Robinson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, New York, and Stuart M. Grant, James J.Sabella, Megan D. McIntyre, Jeff A. Almeida, ChristineM. Mackintosh, and Jill Agro, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, for Lead Plaintiffs Pacific Investment ManagementCompany, LLC and RH Capital LLC and the ProspectiveClass.Robert B. McCaw, Lori A. Martin, John V.H. Pierce, andDawn M. Wilson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale andDorr LLP, New York, New York, for the "144A" or "Bond Underwriter" Defendants.Jeffrey T. Golenbock and Adam C. Silverstein,Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP, NewYork, New York, for Defendants Phillip R. Bennett,Refco Group Holdings Inc., and Phillip R. Bennett ThreeYear Annuity Trust.Bruce R. Braun, Bradley E. Lerman, Linda T. Coberly,and David Mollon, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, New York and Chicago, Illinois, and Margaret MaxwellZegel and Tracy W. Berry, Grant Thornton LLP,Chicago, Illinois, for Defendant Grant Thornton LLP.Michael T. Hannafan, Blake T. Hannafan, and NicholasA. Pavich, Hannafan [**2] & Hannafan, Ltd., Chicago,Illinois, and Norman Eisen and Melinda Sarafa,Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York, New York, for Defendant Tone Grant.Helen B. Kim and Marc D. Powers, Baker & Hostetler LLP, New York, New York and Los Angeles, California,and Richard E. Nathan, Nathan Law Office, LosAngeles, California, for Defendant Dennis A. Klejna.Stuart L. Shapiro, Matthew J. Sava, and Yoram J. Miller,Shapiro Forman Allen Sava & McPherson LLP, NewYork, New York, for Defendants Joseph J. Murphy andGerald M. Sherer.Ivan Kline, Stuart I. Friedman, and Elizabeth D.Meacham, Friedman & Wittenstein, New York, NewYork, for Defendant William M. Sexton.Holly K. Kulka, Heller Ehrman LLP, New York, NewYork, for Defendant Philip Silverman.Greg A. Danilow and Paul Dutka (Seth Goodchild andJoshua S. Amsel, on the brief), Weil, Gotshal & MangesLLP, New York, New York, for the "THL" and "Audit
 
Page 2503 F. Supp. 2d 611, *; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31969, **Committee" Defendants.Barbara Moses and Rachel Korenblat, Morvillo,Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, P.C., NewYork, New York, for Defendant Robert Trosten.
JUDGES:
GERARD E. LYNCH, United States DistrictJudge.
OPINION BY:
GERARD E. LYNCH
OPINION
[*618]
OPINION AND ORDER 
 GERARD [**3] E. LYNCH, District Judge:Various defendants in this large securities classaction arising from the collapse of Refco Inc. and itsaffiliated companies ("Refco") move for dismissal or  partial dismissal of the First Amended Complaint as tothem. This opinion addresses ten motions to dismiss bytwenty-eight defendants, many of whom raiseoverlapping arguments. Accordingly, to avoid an undulyduplicative and lengthy opinion, the movants' legalarguments will be grouped together. Detailed discussionsof relevant factual allegations will be reserved for thelegal analyses that require them, and the initialdiscussion of background facts will accordingly be brief.
BACKGROUND
 
I. The Allegations
 
A. The Alleged Fraudulent Scheme
 Refco was a provider of brokerage and clearingservices in the international derivatives, currency andfutures markets.
1
Part of Refco's business modelinvolved giving loans to its trading clients, which theclients then used to leverage larger trades. (Compl. PP 2,87, 382.) At a certain point, Refco began making loanswithout adequately assessing the customers' credit-worthiness or their trading activities. These risky loans began [**4] to backfire in 1997 and 1998, when severalglobal financial crises caused Refco and a number of itslargest customers to suffer massive trading losses.(Compl. PP 31, 383-97.) [*619] The loans were now"uncollectible receivables" that would never be paid. (P.Mem. 8.)1 The name "Refco," as used throughout thisopinion, refers to Refco Inc., the publicly tradedcompany formed pursuant to the August 2005initial public offering ("IPO") described below, aswell as to Refco Group Ltd., LLC, the companythrough which Refco's business was primarilyconducted prior to the IPO. (Compl. PP 20-21.)Rather than disclose these uncollectible receivablesto the public and Refco's investors, Refco's managementallegedly devised a scheme to hide them. First, theytransferred the loans onto the books of Refco GroupHoldings, Inc. ("RGHI"), an entity owned and controlled by defendant Phillip R. Bennett, Refco's president, CEO,and Chairman (Compl. P 32) and Tone Grant, Bennett's predecessor as CEO (id. P 41). As a result, RGHI [**5]owed hundreds of millions of dollars to Refco. In order to hide RGHI's obligation to Refco, the complaintalleges, a series of fraudulent transactions were arranged by which the RGHI receivable was made to disappear from Refco's books.The transactions all worked in essentially the sameway. First, Refco Capital (a Refco subsidiary) wouldmake loans to a third party.
2
This money was transferredinto accounts in the third party's name at Refco. (Compl.PP 417-18). The third party would then loan anequivalent amount to RGHI; the loan agreements between the third party and Refco Capital required thatthe money be used only for that purpose.
3
(Id. P 411.)These loans to RGHI were guaranteed by Refco itself;Bennett -- on behalf of Refco as guarantor -- signed theloan agreement between the third party and RGHI.(Compl. PP 415-18.) RGHI then used the loan from thethird party to pay down the money it owed to Refco for the uncollectible receivables. (Compl. P 416.) Thus,Refco Capital was loaning money to RGHI for use intemporarily paying off its debt to Refco. This series of transactions would take place a few days before the endof the relevant financial period, and would be [**6]undone within two weeks. (Compl. P 409).2 It appears from the complaint that most or allof the loans at issue originated from RefcoCapital, a subsidiary, not from Refco itself.(Compl. PP 403, 405.) Although the Complaint invarious places uses "Refco" and "Refco Capital"interchangeably, it is clear in context that RefcoCapital was the source of the loans. For example, paragraph 409 of the complaint clearly uses"Refco" to refer to "Refco Capital," as is apparentfrom the allegation that the loan agreement wassigned by David Weaver, the ChieAdministrative Officer at Refco Capital.3 The third parties were compensated for thisservice by the interest on their loans to RGHI,which was greater than the interest they werecharged by Refco Capital. (Compl. P 413.) The payments of interest, however, were made byRefco Capital, not RGHI. (Id. P 418.)The loans in question were substantially greater thanRefco's reported net income. A February 2005 loan, for example, was for $ 595 million, 337% of [**7] Refco's
 
Page 3503 F. Supp. 2d 611, *; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31969, **reported net income for the relevant fiscal year. (Compl.P 560.) A February 2004 loan was for $ 970 million,518% of Refco's reported net income for the relevantfiscal year. (Id.) If compared to quarterly income, of course, the size of the loans is even more dramatic: a November 2004 loan for $ 545 million was theequivalent of 3,045% of Refco's reported net income for that quarter. (Id.)
4
4 Plaintiffs argue that loans for sums in excessof Refco's net earnings were unusual (Compl. P562), but do not provide information about other loans with which to compare the fraudulent loans.Defendants point out that the loans representedless than 1% of Refco's alleged assets during theClass Period. (See id. PP 177, 515).Thus, Refco Capital was loaning enormous sums of money to the third party while Refco guaranteed anequivalent loan from the third party to RGHI.Meanwhile, Refco Capital -- not RGHI -- paid to thethird party the interest purportedly owed by RGHI. (Id. P563.) The transactions [**8] [*620] took place insubstantially the same form over the course of six years. None of these transactions was disclosed to the public in the filings discussed below. Thus, in effect,Refco was loaning money to itself, through third parties,to hide its dismal financial situation from the public andits investors.
B. The Relevant Transactions
 The various transactions at issue in this case took  place while the fraudulent scheme above was ongoing.
1.
The Rule 144A Bonds and the
Exxon Capital
 Exchange
In June 2004, Refco issued $ 600 million of 9%Senior Subordinated Notes due in 2012. These bondswere sold to the defendants referred to by plaintiffs asthe "Bond Underwriter Defendants," who call themselvesthe "144A Defendants." These defendants thenimmediately resold the bonds to institutional buyers,including some of the plaintiffs. (See Compl. PP 94-95,100-08.) The bonds were unregistered pursuant toSecurities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule144A,
17 C.F.R. § 230.144A
, which exempts private placements to qualified institutional buyers from theregistration requirements of the Securities Act, and werethus issued pursuant to [**9] an offering memorandumrather than a registration statement. (Compl. PP 105-108.) Plaintiffs allege that this offering memorandumcontained various false statements concerning Refco'sfinancial performance and viability. (Id. PP 109-143.)The unregistered bond offering was marketed toinstitutional investors at a nationwide road show in July2004 (the "Road Show").Plaintiffs argue that this unregistered bond offeringwas the first step in a single plan of financing. Thesecond step in this putative plan came when Refco issuedregistered bonds, which holders of the Rule 144A Bondsacquired by exchanging their Rule 144A bonds for registered bonds in a transaction known as an "ExxonCapital exchange."The registered bond offering was made pursuant to aForm S-4 Registration Statement (Wilson Decl. Ex. C)(the "Bond Registration Statement"), which was filedwith the SEC on October 12, 2004, and became effectiveon the day the registered bonds were issued, April 13,2005. The registration statement was not yet effective atthe time of the Rule 144A offering. (Compl. PP 149-50.)Plaintiffs allege that this statement, too, containedvarious false statements of material fact. ( [**10] Id. PP153-65.)
2.
The August 2005 IPO
In August 2005, Refco conducted a successful initial public offering ("IPO"), underwritten by fifteen banksincluding the three banks that served as underwriters for the Rule 144A offering. (See P. Mem. 14 n.8). In theIPO, Refco sold approximately 20% of its shares to plaintiff RH Capital and other members of the putativeclass. (Compl. P 166.) The IPO was conducted pursuantto a Form S-1 registration statement dated April 8, 2005,Form S-1/A registration statements dated May 27, July 1,July 20, July 25, August 8, and August 10, 2005, and aForm 424B1 prospectus dated August 10, 2005. (Id. P168.) Again, plaintiffs allege that these filings containedfalse statements of material fact. (Id. PP 172-98.)
3.
The October 2005 Press Release and Refco'sCollapse
On October 10, 2005, Refco issued a press releaseannouncing that it had discovered an "undisclosedaffiliate transaction." (Id. P 199.) The press releasedisclosed the existence of a $ 340 million receivableowed to the company by "an entity controlled by PhillipR. Bennett" [*621] (that is, RGHI), and indicated thatBennett had repaid the receivable in [**11] cash as of October 10. It suggested that the receivable representedRGHI's assumption of a debt owed by a third party toRefco, which "may have been uncollectible." (Id.)Because this receivable had not been disclosed in the previously-filed financial statements, the press releaseconcluded that these statements "should no longer berelied upon." (Id. P 200.) Refco's stock price dropped45% in a single day. (Id. P 202.) Plaintiffs allege,however, that this press release did not disclose the fullextent of Refco's troubles, because it downplayed theimpact that the disclosure would have on Refco's business. (Id. PP 202-03.) An investigation by the SECwas immediately commenced, and on October 12, 2005,Bennett was arrested as a flight risk. (Id. PP 205-06.)

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->