INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS - Banca di Legnano

Level: 2 – From: 2 – Wednesday, July 21, 2010 – 13:20 – eprint6 – 4247 Section 10
of approximately US$5 billion, plus fees, costs and exemplary damages. The District Court granted in part
defendants’ motions to dismiss, which resulted in the dismissal of approximately 650 defendants from the
lawsuit. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal decision. The primary claims remaining against BANA, BAS,
ML&Co., Merrill Lynch Capital Corp. and Fleet include fraud, aiding and abetting fraud and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty. There are several pending defense motions for summary judgment. Trial
is scheduled for September 13, 2010.
Auction Rate Securities Claims
General Information
On March 25, 2008, a putative class action, entitled Burton v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al., was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner
and Smith Incorporated (“MLPF&S”) and ML&Co. on behalf of persons who purchased and continue to
hold auction rate securities (“ARS”) offered for sale by MLPF&S between March 25, 2003 and February
13, 2008. The complaint alleges, among other things, that MLPF&S failed to disclose material facts about
ARS. A similar action, entitled Stanton v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al., was filed the next day in the
same court. On October 31, 2008, the two cases, entitled In Re Merrill Lynch Auction Rate Securities
Litigation, were consolidated, and, on December 10, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
amended complaint. Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in the market value of ARS allegedly caused
by the decision of MLPF&S and ML&Co. to discontinue supporting auctions for ARS. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, including rescission, other compensatory and consequential damages, costs, fees and
interest. On February 27, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
in In Re Merrill Lynch Auction Rate Securities Litigation. On May 22, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended consolidated complaint. On July 24, 2009, ML&Co. filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the second amended consolidated complaint with prejudice in Burton v. Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc., et al. On April 22, 2010, plaintiff Colin Wilson filed a notice of appeal from the order of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing the second amended consolidated
compliant.
On May 22, 2008, a putative class action, entitled Bondar v. Bank of America Corporation, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Issuer, Banc of America
Investment Services, Inc. (“BAI”) and BAS on behalf of persons who purchased ARS from the defendants.
The amended complaint, which was filed on January 22, 2009, alleges, among other things, that the Issuer,
BAI and BAS manipulated the market for, and failed to disclose material facts about ARS, and seeks to
recover unspecified damages for losses in the market value of ARS allegedly caused by the decision of
BAS and other broker/dealers to discontinue supporting auctions for ARS. On February 12, 2009, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”) consolidated Bondar and two related, individual
federal actions into one proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On
September 9, 2009, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint.
On September 4, 2008, two civil antitrust putative class actions, Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, Maryland v. Citigroup et al., and Mayfield et al. v. Citigroup Inc. et al., were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Issuer, ML&Co., and other financial
institutions alleging that the defendants conspired to restrain trade in ARS by artificially supporting
auctions and later withdrawing that support. City Council of Baltimore is filed on behalf of a class of
issuers of ARS underwritten by the defendants between May 12, 2003 and February 13, 2008 who seek to
recover the alleged above-market interest payments they claim they were forced to make when the Issuer,
ML&Co. and others allegedly discontinued supporting ARS. In addition, the plaintiffs who also purchased
ARS seek to recover claimed losses in the market value of those securities allegedly caused by the
decision of the financial institutions to discontinue supporting auctions for the securities. These plaintiffs
seek treble damages and seek to rescind at par their purchases of ARS. Mayfield is filed on behalf of a
199