Pension funds sue BoA over Merrill Lynch purchase
NEW YORK - The California Public Employees' Retirement System (Calpers) and the California State Teachers Retirement System (Calstrs) have filed for lead plaintiff status in a New York class-action lawsuit against Bank of America (BoA). The two funds are the largest US state pension funds; holding assets of $173 billion and $114 billion respectively. The legal challenge alleges BoA executives failed to disclose crucial information on the bank's deal to buy stricken investment bank and brokerage Merrill Lynch. Merrill went on to announce $15 billion of fourth-quarter losses within weeks of its sale and BoA has so far received $45 billion in federal bail-out funds.
Calpers and Calstrs join five pension funds that initially applied for lead plaintiff status after losing a combined $274 million between July 21, 2008 and Jan 20. The first round of plaintiffs include the Texas and Ohio state teaching pensions; Ohio's general state fund for public employees; a Netherlands fund representing the Dutch healthcare and social sector; and a large Swedish national pension fund.
The plaintiffs allege proxy statements published before the conclusion of the troubled acquisition failed to disclose Merrill's true financial condition and that BoA failed to conduct adequate research into the deal.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either
One vision, two paths: UK reporting revamp diverges from EU
FCA and Esma could learn from each other on how to cut industry compliance costs
Market doesn’t share FSB concerns over basis trade
Industry warns tougher haircut regulation could restrict market capacity as debt issuance rises
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising
UK clearing houses face tougher capital regime than EU peers
Ice resists BoE plan to move second skin in the game higher up capital stack, but members approve
ECB seeks capital clarity on Spire repacks
Dealers split between counterparty credit risk and market risk frameworks for repack RWAs
FSB chief defends global non-bank regulation drive
Schindler slams ‘misconception’ that regulators intend to impose standardised bank-like rules