This is a securities class action against Defendants for claims under sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the Securities Act by disseminating offering materials for the Viacom Preferred Stock Initial Public Offering and Viacom Common Stock Secondary Public Offering (collectively, the “Offering Materials”) that contained false and misleading statements and omitted required disclosures. The alleged misstatements and omissions related to, among other things, certain of the underwriters’ holdings of, and intentions to sell, Viacom securities outside of the Offerings, in connection with their brokerage relationships with Archegos Capital Management, LP (“Archegos”). Defendants were underwriters for the Offerings.
On August 13, 2021, an initial class action complaint was filed by Camelot in the Court, styled Camelot Event Driven Fund, A Series of Frank Funds Trust v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al., Index No. 654959/2021, alleging violations of the Securities Act in connection with the Offerings.
On November 5, 2021, Plaintiffs Camelot and MPERS filed an amended class action complaint. On December 21, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the corrected amended class action complaint (the “Complaint”). The Complaint, like the initial complaint, alleges that the Offering Materials contained false and misleading statements and omitted required disclosures.
On December 22, 2021, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint. After briefing and oral argument, on February 7, 2023, the Court entered a Decision and Order granting the Motions to Dismiss of Viacom and the Individual Defendants and denying the Motions to Dismiss of the Underwriter Defendants (the “Motions to Dismiss Order”). On February 15, 2023, the Underwriter Defendants filed notices of appeal to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department from the Motions to Dismiss Order. On March 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the Motions to Dismiss Order in so far as it granted the Motions to Dismiss of Viacom and the Individual Defendants.
On April 17, 2023, the Underwriter Defendants filed Answers to the Complaint.
On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class.
On June 1, 2023, Defendants filed motions seeking a stay of discovery pending their appeals from the Motions to Dismiss Order. On June 12, 2023, the Court entered a Decision and Order denying the motions to stay (the “Denial of Stay Order”). On June 27 and 30, 2023, Defendants filed notices of appeal from the Denial of Stay Order. On November 2, 2023, the First Department entered an Order affirming the Denial of Stay Order.
On January 4, 2024, after briefing and oral argument, the Court entered a Decision and Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as co-lead Class counsel (“Class Certification Order”). On February 14, 2024, Defendants filed a notice of appeal from the Class Certification Order. That appeal remains pending, but will be dismissed if the Settlement is approved by the Court.
On April 4, 2024, after briefing and oral argument, the First Department entered an Order in connection with the appeals from the Motions to Dismiss Order: (i) affirming the dismissal of Viacom and the Individual Defendants; (ii) affirming in part and reversing in part the non-dismissal of Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and Wells Fargo, and (iii) reversing the non-dismissal of the other Underwriter Defendants.
During discovery, Defendants and the Former Defendants produced over 1.5 million pages of documents to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also received over 270,000 pages of documents from 12 third parties in response to subpoenas. Plaintiffs produced over 22,000 pages documents to Defendants in response to their discovery requests.
The Parties also conducted 39 fact depositions. Class Counsel took 37 depositions. Class Counsel also took the deposition of the representative of one third party. Defendants deposed one representative from each of the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed several motions to compel discovery, four of which were pending at the time of the Parties’ agreement-in-principle to settle.
The Parties completed fact discovery on January 24, 2025 (subject to the four pending motions to compel), and then began expert discovery.
The Parties engaged the Hon. Layn R. Phillips, a former federal court judge, as a mediator. The Parties exchanged more than a dozen mediation briefs, plus ex parte submissions, and participated in three in-person mediation sessions with Judge Phillips. These sessions took place on November 7, 2024, January 6, 2025, and February 6, 2025. The sessions ended without an agreement being reached, however, Judge Phillips continued to work with the Parties. Following subsequent negotiations, Judge Phillips made a mediator’s recommendation to resolve the Action for $120,000,000 for the benefit of the Class.
On February 24, 2025, the Parties accepted the mediator’s proposal, and on March 5, 2025, the Parties executed a settlement term sheet (the “Term Sheet”) memorializing their agreement-in-principle to settle the Action. The Term Sheet set forth, among other things, the Parties’ agreement to settle and release all claims against Defendants in return for a cash payment by or on behalf of Defendants of $120 million for the benefit of the Class, subject to certain terms and conditions and the execution of a customary “long form” stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers.
After additional negotiations regarding the specific terms of their agreement, the Parties entered into the Stipulation on March 27, 2025. The Stipulation (together with the exhibits thereto) reflects the final and binding agreement between the Parties. The Stipulation can be viewed on this website.
On April 3, 2025, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, authorized the Notice to be disseminated to potential Class Members, and scheduled the Settlement Hearing to consider whether to grant final approval of the Settlement.