Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (IT)
ISINs: IT0005092165, IT0004984842, IT0001334587, IT0004359359, IT0003455497; CUSIPs: 05951A303, 05951A105, T1188A116

Relevant Period: January 2, 2008 – May 13, 2016

Investors suffered losses due to the concealment of the losses created by various transactions entered into by the Bank and its management in order to artificially inflate its balance sheet. The concealment of the losses was done by entering into derivative contracts with third parties and these contracts were neither fully reported on the bank’s accounts nor fully disclosed on the 2009 financial statement. The derivative contracts and related documentation were discovered and made public by the new board of the bank at the end of November 2012. During the timeframe from January 2, 2009 until November 14, 2012 the stock price dropped from € 33.52 to € 5.11, a loss of € 28.11 per share, a loss of more than 80%. On December 15, 2016, DRRT’s clients joined the criminal case against the indicted defendants as civil parties, bringing a claim for their collective holdings of 30 million BMPS common stock.
FOREX (U.S. & EU)
Relevant Period: January 1, 2003 – May 1, 2014
It is alleged that 12 banks have conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange rates, whereby doing so they have diminished the plaintiffs’ returns in trades, pension plans and savings accounts. It is alleged that the traders from the accused banks fixed currency rates, having shared confidential information in private chat rooms; and that the bank employees colluded to trade in ways that would result in favorable fixed rates. DRRT has been monitoring the US case and is preparing potential recovery action outside of the US.
Fortis SA/NV now Ageas SA/NV (NL)
ISINs: BE0003801181, BE0974264930, NL0000300838, US00844W1099, US34956J3095
Relevant Period: May 29, 2007 – October 14, 2008

Prior to its collapse and subsequent government bailout in October 2008, Fortis S.A./N.V. & Fortis N.V. (now Ageas S.A./N.V. and Ageas N.V.) was the largest financial services company in Belgium, providing retail banking, asset management, private banking, merchant banking, and insurance services to personal, business, and institutional clients, and was a major financial industry player in the BeNeLux and other European countries. Executives at Fortis materially misled investors with numerous public disclosures that were made in connection with the September 2007 Rights Issue used to raise capital to fund the acquisition of ABN Amro Holding NV. Only three days after Fortis announced a capital increase in the amount of €8.3 billion, the governments of the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium agreed on a bailout of Fortis, which resulted in the takeover of major parts of Fortis by these governments. On August 3, 2012, Ageas S.A./N.V. and Ageas N.V. merged, forming an entirely Belgian entity. On March 14, 2016, Stichting Investor Claims Against Fortis reached an agreement with Ageas NV/SA pursuant to which Ageas will pay an amount of €1.2 billion to eligible shareholders covered by the settlement. This is the largest settlement of investors' claims in Europe so far.
LIBOR (NL)
Relevant Period: January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2012
It is alleged that various panel banks manipulated (“rigged”) LIBOR and EURIBOR rates for several years, by submitting, at times mostly from 2007 on, artificially low rates to falsely convey the impression that the banks were in a better financial condition than they actually were and to pay lower interest rates on LIBOR/EURIBOR-based financial instruments and products that they sold to investors, thereby causing damages for these investors. Moreover, it is alleged that the banks, at times mostly before 2007, also manipulated LIBOR and EURIBOR to benefit their own books and trading positions, by artificially inflating or depressing the interest rates, which – given the large amounts of trades at stake – resulted in substantial financial gains for the manipulating banks. DRRT has been monitoring the US case and is preparing potential recovery action outside of the US.
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation
ISINs: JP3899800001; SEDOLS: B175XZ0, 5507409, 6598446, B3DTT96, BHZL4T3, B02JD27; CINS: J44131167

Relevant Period: Jan 01, 2011 - April 30, 2017

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016, former Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (“Mitsubishi” or the “Company”) President Tetsuro Aikawa admitted to the public that the Company has been cheating Japanese emissions tests since at least June 2013. On news of this scandal, Mitsubishi’s common stock (ISIN: JP3899800001) dropped 15%, closing trading that day at ¥733 ($6.74) per share, representing a market cap loss of $1.2 billion. Further news emerged on April 21 and 22, 2016, pushing Mitsubishi’s stock price down to ¥504 ($4.53) per share by close of business on Friday, April 22, 2016, representing a total market cap loss of approximately ¥345,038,364,000.00 ($3,161,056,821.43) since the initial disclosure of April 20, 2016. Thereafter, on April 26, 2016, Mitsubishi made the shocking disclosure that its emission testing fraud extended back 25 years, to 1991. By the end of the day on April 27, Mitsubishi was trading at only ¥422 (down from ¥864 on April 19th, the day before the scandal erupted). On May 9, it was revealed that Mitsubishi had been using the improper testing methods on all models of its cars. In the aftermath of the news of the scandal, the Company’s investors lost more than 50 percent of the value of their investment with its market capitalization declining by ¥435 billion ($4.1 billion). The loss in market capitalization after the initial disclosure on April 20, 2016 is directly related to the disclosure of the cheating scheme, as such drastic fluctuations were not normal in the lead-up to the revelation. The per share price drop of ¥442 (¥864 to ¥422) from the time of disclosure on April 20 until close of trading April 27 in Tokyo represents a 51% decline and was sparked by extreme market volatility in Mitsubishi stock. Daily trading volumes on April 20 and 22 saw extreme excess trading above average daily volumes for the prior 120 days. An internal investigation revealed that the Company had been notified of the problems by numerous employees, dating back to at least February of 2005. As such, the Company’s financial statements, annual and quarterly reports, and other public disclosures contained false and misleading information and omitted material information about the company. DRRT has retained local counsel Koga & Partners, our partners in the historic ¥11 billion Olympus settlement as well as the ongoing Toshiba case. An initial complaint against Mitsubishi was filed on June 26, 2017, alleging over ¥18 billion ($160 million) on behalf of 120 institutional investors.
Saipem SpA (IT)
ISIN: IT0000068525

Relevant Period: January 2, 2007 – December 31, 2013

Investors from around the world incurred losses as a result of Saipem’s ongoing misinformation of the market and its untimely disclosure of the correct, relevant information, which led to significant stock drops in December 2012, January 2013 and June 2013. In sum, Saipem misled investors over time about the financial impact and risk stemming from uncertain, bribery-procured, high-margin contracts, which produced substantial, negative consequences to Saipem’s 2012 and 2013 earnings. The financial consequences of Saipem’s illegal behavior in years prior and the deliberate misinformation of the market surfaced mostly in the financial year 2013 and relate to Saipem’s involvement in North African corruption to procure lucrative contracts over the years from 2007 to 2010, including allegations and evidence of bribes being paid by and through Saipem subsidiaries in Algeria, in order to win a series of contracts worth around €8 billion. DRRT together with its local Italian counsel is preparing to file a complaint in the Court of Milan and have already initiated out-of-court actions.

SNS REAAL NV (NL)
ISINs: NL0000390706 and various bonds

Relevant Period: May 18, 2006 – February 1, 2013

SNS REAAL NV (“SNS”) faced substantial financial instability when the Dutch government announced they would nationalize the company on February 1, 2013. Before the 2008 credit crisis, SNS had acquired a number of toxic real estate investments and incorporated them into their Property Finance Branch. Combined with the financial instability in the commercial real estate sector and due to capitalization rules throughout the EU affecting all banks, SNS had been facing increasing capitalization issues without disclosing them until summer 2012. All shares, capital securities issued by SNS REAAL NV to Stichting Beheer SNS REAAL, and subordinated bonds were expropriated for the benefit of the Dutch State. Moreover, the law provided that all shareholders would be dispossessed of any potential rights, including compensation rights, against SNS and its management in connection with the purchase or sale of SNS shares leading up to the nationalization. However, the Council of State decided that holders of the securities and capital components have a right to compensation by the State at the level of the actual value of the affected enterprise at the time of the expropriation. A Dutch foundation will be set up in the coming months under Dutch Sec. 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code.

Tesco PLC (UK)
ISIN: GB0008847096

Relevant Period: January 1, 2012 – November 30, 2014

Tesco PLC (“Tesco”) is a UK-based and LSE-listed grocery retailer with stores in 12 countries worldwide having annual sales of an average of £68.5 billion over the last 5 years and average group profits of about £3.587 billion over the same time span. On August 29, 2014 Tesco published a partial disclosure (profit warning) leading to a heavy trading volume of £130.29 million amidst the big sell-off by a major investor. On September 22, 2014, Tesco disclosed that it had overstated its expected profits for the first half of 2014 by £250 million, because it improperly accelerated the recognition of income while at the same time delaying the accrual of certain costs. On October 23, 2014, Tesco published its earnings statement, disclosing and confirming the overstatement of profit figures, an overstatement eventually increased by an independent investigator. Following the disclosures, Moody’s Credit Agency downgraded Tesco’s short and long-term credit rating as well. Overall, Tesco’s stock price fell from £246 in August 2014 to £169 in October 2014, representing over £10 billion in market capitalization losses. DRRT together with its litigation partners are evaluating all potential avenues for an efficient recovery of the investors’ losses.
Toshiba Corp. (JP)
ISIN: JP3592200004

Relevant Period: March 31, 2008 to April 22, 2016

Toshiba Corp. (Toshiba) engaged in years of organized, top-down accounting fraud of an extent of over $1.2 billion going back to at least 2008 and continuing until it was caught in Q2/2015. On July 20, 2015, an independent investigation committee disclosed that Toshiba had overstated its operating profits by $1.22 bn. The report further confirmed that the fraud inside of Toshiba was organized and mostly coming from the lack or delay in reporting substantial losses connected to its infrastructure, semiconductor, personal computer and television business divisions. The report further documented that Toshiba’s President and Vice Chairman were aware of the profit overstatements and the delays in loss reporting, and had pushed their subordinates to meet unachievable financial targets. On December 7, 2015, Japan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) recommended a fine of ¥7.37 billion ($60 million) for Toshiba’s accounting-related violations, a record in Japan. The activities of the Japanese FSA further underscore the gravity of the accounting fraud at Toshiba and leave no doubt of its liability also for resulting investor losses. DRRT is offering qualifying institutional investors the opportunity to participate in a risk-free, fully funded and insured, contingency-fee basis representation. The first complaint was filed on June 22, 2016, for a group of 45 institutional investors totaling nearly $150 million in damages. A second complaint was filed on April 3, 2017, claiming approximately $400 million on behalf of 70 international and Japanese institutional investors. On June 13, 2017, the court consolidated both actions, which will now proceed concurrently. DRRT has retained experienced and reputable Japanese counsel Koga & Partners as local counsel. Koga & Partners already cooperated with DRRT in securing a landmark ¥11 billion out-of-court settlement in March 2015 relating to the 2011 Olympus $1 billion accounting fraud.
Petrofac Limited (UK)
ISIN: GB00B0H2K534 (common stock)

Relevant Period: January 1, 2013 – May 31, 2017

Petrofac Limited is a provider of oilfield services to the international oil and gas exploration industry, headquartered in London. On May 12, 2017, the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) announced launching a criminal investigation into Petrofac over suspicions of bribery, corruption and money laundering and related to an ongoing SFO investigation into Unaoil, a Monaco-based consultancy that worked with Petrofac, primarily in Kazakhstan between 2002 and 2009. Petrofac’s COO Marwan Chedid resigned after being suspended until further notice on May 25. Both he and CEO Ayman Asfari had been arrested and questioned under caution by the SFO before being released without charge. Petrofac shares fell after the SFO investigation was announced and further when Petrofac announced suspending Chedid. The shares have fallen over 50% since May 12, and 30% alone to 389 pence on May 26, 2017, causing significant losses to the shareholders. A consortium of law firms and funders, including DRRT, are investigating potential legal remedies against Petrofac in the UK for losses incurred by investors as a result of the conduct under investigation.
JBS S.A. (Brazil)
ISIN: BRJBSSACNOR8 (Common Stock)

Relevant Period: March 27, 2007 – May 31, 2017

The proposed arbitration is based on JBS’s false and/or misleading statements and failure to disclose that its growth (including its initial issuance of stock in 2007) towards becoming the world’s largest meat packaging company is based on bribery and corruption, specifically the illegally obtained financing obtained through kickbacks to Brazilian state-owned National Economic and Social Development Bank (BNDES) and its subsidiary BNDESPar since 2005. When details emerged of a plea deal that JBS executives Joesley and Wesley Batista made with Brazilian prosecutors on May 19, 2017, it caused JBS’s share price to drop 31.3% from R$8.71 on May 19 to R$5.98 on May 22. Joesley Batista admitted that he and his brother paid $220 million overall in bribes, with most of the money being funneled into Brazilian political campaigns. JBS and other companies under the umbrella of holding company J&F Investimentos S.A. were the biggest campaign contributors in the Brazilian 2014 elections. This case is still developing with ongoing investigations by the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM). Furthermore, JBS executives admitted to bribing regulators and politicians to overlook food inspections of its meat processing and packing plants and to ignore JBS’s unsanitary practices, such as processing rotten meat and operating plants containing traces of salmonella. A two-year investigation by Brazilian police culminated in a raid on March 17, 2017, of dozens of meat processing plants. When JBS stated in a securities filing on that day that three of its plants and one of its employees were targeted in the probe, JBS’s shares fell over 10% from R$11.99 to R$10.72 per share. The full extent of the fraud emerged only two months later when it was disclosed that the bribery and corruption practices did not only extend to the inspection of meat, but that the entire company was built on such practices since its IPO in 2007.

Volkswagen AG (DE)
DE0007664005 (VW common stock), DE0007664039, DE0007664062 (VW preferred stock), DE0006937733 (Porsche preferred stock, old ISIN), DE000PAH0038 (Porsche preferred stock, new ISIN since Sept. 1, 2008), DE0006757008 (Audi AG common stock), Debt securities guaranteed or issued by the VW Group

Relevant Period: June 6, 2008 – September 25, 2015

On Friday, September 18, 2015, the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a notice of violation of the Clean Air Act against Volkswagen AG (“VW”) and other affiliates, resulting in a potential fine of up to $18 billion ($37,500 per vehicle and infraction, covering 482,000 vehicles in the United States). Only two days later, on Sunday, September 20, 2015, VW admitted to installing a so-called “defeat device software” in various 2.0 liter diesel engine models, which dramatically reduces the nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions of diesel cars during the testing, thereby distorting the outcome of official emission tests. On Tuesday, September 22, 2015, VW admitted that 11 million diesel-powered vehicles were affected worldwide. In the meantime, Martin Winterkorn, VW’s CEO, has resigned. A group of VW employees and management personnel is currently being investigated by the German prosecutor’s office. Furthermore, VW has set aside € 6.5 billion for matters in connection with the defeat device. On Monday and Tuesday, September 21 and September 22, 2015, after VW admitted to fitting its U.S. diesel vehicles with the defeat device, VW common stock plunged from €167.40 to €111.20 (XETRA), VW preferred stock from €167.80 to €106.00 (XETRA), a loss of over €15 billion in market capitalization. The VW preferred stock closed at €106.00 (XETRA), its lowest in more than three years, down more than 50% from its €255.20 high (XETRA) on March 16, 2015. On March 14, 2016, local counsel filed a case against VW on behalf of 278 institutional investors claiming €3.25 billion in damages in the Regional Court Braunschweig, Germany. On September 19, 2016, local counsel filed its second case on behalf of 263 institutional investors of over €1.25 billion in damages against VW at the Regional Court Braunschweig. On May 23, 2017, additional investors joined a third case against VW filed at the same court. The model case is currently pending at the Higher Regional Court of Braunschweig. This court chose the model case lead plaintiff pursuant to the KapMuG requirements and appointed an investor from our group.
Porsche Automobil Holding SE (DE)
DE0006937733 (Porsche preferred stock, old ISIN), DE000PAH0038 (Porsche preferred stock, new ISIN since Sept. 1, 2008)

Relevant Period: June 6, 2008 – September 25, 2015

In September 2015, the U.S. Environment Protection Agency issued a notice of violation of the Clean Air Act against Volkswagen AG (“VW”) and other affiliates, resulting in a potential fine of up to $18 billion ($37,500 per vehicle and infraction, covering 482,000 vehicles in the United States). On Sunday, September 20, 2015, VW admitted to installing a so-called “defeat device software” in various 2.0 liter diesel engine models, which dramatically reduces the nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions of diesel cars during the testing, thereby distorting the outcome of official emission tests. On Tuesday, September 22, 2015, VW admitted that 11 million diesel-powered vehicles were affected worldwide. Porsche Automobil Holding SE (“PHSE”), as its owner, has inevitably had knowledge of VW’s manipulation practice within the scope of organizational fault. On September 19, 2016, local counsel filed a case on behalf of 147 institutional investors of over €547 million in damages against PHSE at the Regional Court Stuttgart, Germany. The model case is currently pending at the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart.
Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (BR)
BRPETRACNOR9 (common stock), BRPETRACNPR6 (preferred stock)

Relevant Period: December 31, 2009 – August 15, 2016

Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras (“Petrobras”), one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world and formerly the largest corporation in Brazil in terms of revenue, has been involved in a major corruption and bribery (graft) scandal since 2014, affecting the correctness of its financial statements and public filings for at least the past 6 years. The disclosures of the extent of the bribes and corruption and their impact on the financial condition of the company have causes its U.S. as well as Brazilian equity securities (common and preferred) to lose over 72% since the scandal became public. Senior Petrobras executives have been accused of (and convicted of criminal actions) accepting bribes from construction companies in exchange for awarding inflated price contracts to them, allowing in return kickbacks to these companies as well as funneling illegal payments to the ruling party. The financial condition of Petrobras was particularly affected by recording construction projects at the (inflated) contract values as assets on its balance sheet (see notes to financial statements), instead of at their actual values, thereby illegally overstating asset values in the billions. This has been corrected in the meantime, by Petrobras’ announcement of corrections in assets to the tune of over $10 billion. Moreover, Petrobras violated its representations to its shareholders concerning its self-imposed Code of Ethics covering anti-corruption and anti-bribery practices. On May 13 and August 20, 2015, DRRT filed cases for various institutional investors against Petrobras and individual defendants in the U.S. District Court of New York for damages resulting from investments in U.S. issues securities (ADR and U.S. bonds). These individual cases settled in the beginning of 2017. In August 2016, local counsel filed a request for arbitration with the Market Arbitration Chamber (MAC), the arbitration institution of the Brazilian Stock Exchange, afterwards two requests for joinders were filed, bringing the total of all claims to be between $380 and $660 million in inflation/rescission damages.
BlackBerry Limited (CA)
This case against BlackBerry Limited (“BlackBerry”), a technology company that provides telecommunication solutions, concerns BlackBerry’s accounting practices in respect of revenues recognized on the BlackBerry 10 devices and the impact of such accounting practices on BlackBerry’s financial statements for the fiscal year 2012 (released on March 28, 2013) and Q1 2013 (released on June 28,2013). BlackBerry recorded revenues on the BlackBerry 10 when they were shipped into distribution channels even if the sales price was not fixed or determined yet. These revenues recognized on those devices were falsely inflated and materially misleading. Nevertheless, the revenues were used to create the write-downs. This false revenues led to a violation of U.S. GAAP and BlackBerry’s own accounting principles. In December 2013, DRRT filed statement of claim against BlackBerry Limited and the former CEO Thorsten Heins and former CEO Brian Bidulka in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Canada.
Hypo Real Estate Holding AG (DE)
Hypo Real Estate Holding AG (“HRE”) is alleged to have misinformed the market about its U.S. subprime exposure in the inherent risk in the acquisition of Depfa. HRE's stock experienced large losses following its January 16, 2008 statement that it had to write down €390 million to cover the U.S. subprime exposure and even more by the time it had to be rescued by the German government in October 2008. On January 15, 2009, DRRT filed a case on behalf of institutional investors with more than €900 million in claims against Hypo Real Estate Holding AG at the Regional Court Munich, Germany. HRE I is covering the relevant period July 11, 2007 - January 15, 2008, while HRE II is covering the relevant period January 15, 2008 - October 4, 2008, the latter has been stayed. HRE I is currently pending at the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof).
Lloyds Banking Group PLC (UK)
The directors of Lloyds have breached fiduciary duties and duty of care owed directly to the shareholders in the context of advising them that the acquisition and the connected Government recapitalization of Lloyds were in their best interests, and procuring the shareholders’ approval of the transactions on the basis of misleading information and the concealment of the true financial circumstances of HBOS. The English counsel filed a claim on behalf of the group of claimants on November 19, 2014.
Porsche Automobil Holding SE (DE)
It is alleged that Porsche Automobil Holding SE ("PHSE") and its former officers Mr. Wiedeking and Mr. Härter systematically lied to and misled the market regarding its true intentions to take over and dominate Volkswagen AG (“VW”), and that VW tacitly went along with this misrepresentation by violating its own duties to publish insider information related to a possible or planned take-over by PHSE. In March 2008, PHSE rejected any rumors it was seeking a control and domination of VW as pure speculation, but then went on to secretly build a combined equity and option portfolio with control over 74.1% in VW shares before disclosing on October 26, 2008 that it had that much control and was now seeking to dominate VW. In 2011, two cases on behalf of institutional investors from around the world with over €2.1 billion in damage claims were filed against VW and PHSE at the Regional Court Braunschweig, Germany. On April 13, 2016, the Regional Court of Hanover designated this case as a model case proceeding, and consequently stayed all cases filed based on the same facts and circumstances. The model case is pending at the Higher Regional Court of Celle.
Vivendi S.A. (FR)
From at least 1998 through mid-2002, Vivendi engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate its share prices by materially and fraudulently misstating its financial results as well as its debt and liquidity situation. This rendered Vivendi’s financial statements and balance sheets published in its Annual Reports for all years between 1999 and 2001 materially false and misleading. Only shortly after the ouster of Vivendi’s then-CEO Jean-Marie Messier on July 3, 2002, did Vivendi disclose that, following an acquisition spree directed by Messier, Vivendi had amassed approximately $18 million in debt and was consequently facing a severe liquidity crisis. In order to avoid default on its largest credit obligations, the company was forced to immediately secure both bridge and long-term financing. In the wake of these announcements, the price of Vivendi’s common stock and U.S. ADRs plunged by nearly 25% and remained depressed for a substantial period of time. In 2012, local counsel filed a complaint against Vivendi Universal S.A. and its former CEO Jean-Marie Messier in the Tribunal de Commerce in Paris, France representing over 100 international institutional investors with collective damages exceeding €1 billion.

Track Record

Non-U.S. Cases

Royal Bank of Scotland plc (United Kingdom)
£800 million (over 1 billion U.S. dollars) settlement in 2016

DRRT reached a £800 million settlement with Royal Bank of Scotland plc (“RBS”) in the case arising from the April 2008 rights issue on behalf of over 300 institutional investors from all over the world. A six-month trial was due to start in March 2017. Working with local solicitors from the London boutique litigation firm Stewarts Law, the settlement with RBS marks another successful case resolution for DRRT clients. It adds to the settlement with Olympus for ¥11 billion in Japan. The RBS settlement represents a significant step for investor loss recovery efforts in Europe. Not only is it the second largest settlement of its kind in European history, following the March 2016 Fortis/Ageas settlement, it also ranks among the top 15 settlements in the history of global shareholder litigation. This resolution provides a remarkable recovery per share, rarely seen in group or class action settlements of its kind and size, and a mutually desirable end to expensive and complex litigation. Investors represented by DRRT and Stewarts Law will receive 41p for every share purchased in the 2008 Rights Offering.
Ageas NV/SA fka Fortis (Netherlands)
€1.2 billion (1.27 billion U.S. dollars) settlement in 2016

Stichting Investor Claims Against Fortis (“SICAF”) has reached an agreement with Ageas NV/SA ("Ageas") pursuant to which Ageas will pay an amount of €1.2 billion to eligible shareholders covered by the settlement. This is the largest settlement of investor claims in Europe so far. SICAF represents over 150 institutional investors from various parts of the world (U.S., Canada, U.K., Continental Europe, Asia) on whose behalf two separate court actions were filed against Ageas and other defendants in Utrecht between 2011 and 2012 seeking damages on their investments in Fortis shares in the period from May 2007 to October 2008. The active involvement of the litigating institutions in the Dutch court and the involvement of our Foundation in a leading role in the Dutch litigation since 2011 contributed significantly to this historic settlement. SICAF is proud to have played a prominent role in the negotiations and mediation process and appreciates the support from its board of directors as well as local counsel in this matter. The settlement is subject to the approval of a court in the Netherlands in accordance with the Dutch Act on Collective Settlements (Wet Collectieve Afwikkeling van Massaschades).
Olympus (Japan)
¥11 billion (92 million U.S. dollars) settlement in 2015

In 2013, DRRT reached a JPY 11 billion settlement for the benefit of its group of investor clients, which was not official until signed by Olympus on March 27, 2015, putting an end to litigation commenced in 2012 over the consequences of the accounting fraud committed by the company in the years before. This settlement ended a long settlement agreement drafting process following the early, pre-judgment mediation and preliminary settlement in October 2013. DRRT, in cooperation with its Japanese local counsel, has spearheaded this unique Japanese group litigation and broken new ground in Japanese securities litigation which resulted in the biggest settlement of its kind in Japanese history. While the details of our group’s settlement remain confidential, we are confident that our own outcome is significantly superior to any other settlement. Moreover, our settlement has resulted in an earlier payment to our clients compared to other settlements and our clients have remained anonymous, while investors of other groups have been made public. DRRT is proud to have successfully overcome the challenges involved in a “new” shareholder litigation jurisdiction.
Gildan Activewear Inc. (Canada)
22.5 million U.S. dollars class action settlement in 2010

Gildan Activewear Inc. (“Gildan”) materially increased its stock price due to issuance of misleading earnings guidance for the fiscal year 2008, misleading statements that its Dominican Republic manufacturing facility was operating at a comparable scale of production to its more mature Honduras manufacturing facility, and the failure to make timely disclosure of alleged adverse events affecting the productivity of its Dominican Republic textile manufacturing facility. Based on this, Gildan’s shares rose to over USD $46 per share. Following Gildan’s announcement on April 29, 2008 reducing its fiscal 2008 earnings guidance, Gildan’s stock price fell 30%. DRRT together with the Canadian lead counsel successfully represented a major German investment company as lead plaintiff in this case, which had also been filed in the United States but was dismissed there. This case represents a successful selection of the most appropriate forum for litigating shareholder claims under this circumstance.
Sky Deutschland AG (fka Premiere) (Germany)
This case seeking €242.5 million was resolved in October 2010 for a group of international institutional investors, including major U.S. investors. Investors made claims for compensation alleging violation of securities laws relating to the proper accounting and reporting of subscription numbers of pay-TV cable subscribers between 2005‐2008. DRRT funded the litigation and cooperated with a local German specialty law firm in this matter, reaching a pre-litigation out‐of‐court settlement in 2010. The recovery for prospectus liability claims was almost 50%.
Royal Dutch Shell plc (Netherlands)
$381 million Dutch settlement in April 2007 plus 80% out of the $120 million SEC settlement in the United States (also for non-U.S. investors) On April 11, 2007, Royal Dutch Shell plc signed a settlement agreement to compensate non-U.S. investors for the damages caused by various false statements of the company, relating primarily to its proved oil reserves from 1999 to 2003. The settlement agreement provides relief in the amount of $352.6 million, and an additional sum of $28.4 million was available to align the relief under the non-U.S. settlement agreement with the funds under the U.S. settlement. Royal Dutch Shell furthermore agreed to pay interest as per April 1, 2008. On May 29, 2009, the Dutch Court of Appeals declared the settlement binding on all members and represented investors and a payout of the funds took place mid-2011. DRRT was instrumental in negotiating this Dutch foundation settlement for the entire non-U.S. class and brought in over 25% of all participants in the foundation at a time when the non-U.S. investors were facing dismissal from the U.S. class action for lack of jurisdiction. The result was the first “class-action-type” settlement in securities litigation matters in Europe under the then fairly new WCAM statute.

U.S. Cases

Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - “Petrobras” (United States)
Substantial settlement for opt-out group in 2017
Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras (“Petrobras”), one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world and formerly the largest corporation in Brazil in terms of revenue, has been involved in a major corruption and bribery (graft) scandal since 2014, affecting the correctness of its financial statements and public filings for at least the past 6 years. The disclosures of the extent of the bribes and corruption and their impact on the financial condition of the company have caused its U.S. as well as Brazilian equity securities (common and preferred) to lose over 72% since the scandal became public. Senior Petrobras executives have been accused of (and convicted of) accepting bribes from construction companies in exchange for awarding inflated price contracts to them, allowing in return kickbacks to these companies as well as funneling illegal payments to the ruling party. The financial condition of Petrobras was particularly affected by recording construction projects at the (inflated) contract values as assets on its balance sheet (see notes to financial statements), instead of at their actual values, thereby illegally overstating asset values in the billions. This has been corrected in the meantime, by Petrobras’ announcement of corrections in assets to the tune of over $10 billion. Moreover, Petrobras violated its representations to its shareholders concerning its self-imposed Code of Ethics covering anti-corruption and anti-bribery practices. On May 13 and August 20, 2015, DRRT filed cases for various institutional investors against Petrobras and individual defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for damages resulting from investments in U.S. issues securities (ADR and U.S. bonds). DRRT successfully represented a group of international institutional investors together with U.S. counsel and obtained recovery for its clients that resulted in much earlier payouts to its clients.
Merck & Co. Inc (Vioxx) (United States)
Substantial settlement for opt-out group in 2016
Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC that described Merck's increasing revenues and financial performance. These statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that the Company improperly minimized and downplayed the effect that safety concerns about VIOXX, the Company's second-best selling drug, had on sales of that drug, (ii) failed to disclose concerns scientists and physicians working for Merck had about the cardiovascular safety of VIOXX; (iii) failed to disclose the large amount of liability the Company was facing in personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits due to the hazardous nature of VIOXX and that, as a result, Merck's statements concerning the size of the Company's revenues, financial results, and future earnings projections were lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On August 21, 2007 and January 23, 2015, DRRT filed cases for various institutional investors against Merck and Co., Inc. and individual defendants in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. DRRT successfully represented a group of international and U.S. institutional investors together with U.S. counsel and obtained recovery for its clients that exceeded the class action settlement recovery.
American International Group, Inc. (United States)
Substantial settlement for opt-out group in 2015
The case against American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”) was based upon AIG’s (and its former officers’ and directors’) misstatements about AIG's exposure to Credit Default Swaps and Residential Mortgage Backed Securities and the overall real estate financing market, all of which materialized in a substantial loss of AIG’s market capitalization, i.e., investor capital, and a bailout of immense proportions by the U.S. government in September 2008. In the wake of the U.S. residential housing and mortgage markets deteriorating in 2007 and 2008, AIG misrepresented to investors that these developments would have no negative impact on AIG or its performance. By January 2008, the losses had risen to $11.5 billion. While these losses clearly were substantial and significant, AIG continued to represent that its available capital would be enough to offset such losses. Only months later, AIG acknowledged that it needed to raise additional capital of $20 billion, an amount that, in the end, would soar to about $80 billion in order to avoid AIG’s outright failure. DRRT was the international liaison counsel for its German investment company client and obtained recovery for its clients that exceeded the class action settlement.
Merck Vytorin (United States)
$215 million class action settlement in 2013
Prices of Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) securities were artificially inflated or depressed as a result of allegedly false statements, non-disclosures, and fraudulent conduct in violation of the federal securities laws in relation to the commercial prospects of its “blockbuster” cholesterol drug, Vytorin. Merck was accused of having improperly delayed the release of results of drug trials that would have shown effectiveness results that were not in line with the company’s claims in marketing the drug, and that would have resulted in decreased sales of the drug. When the true trial results were ultimately disclosed, the stock price dropped and investors suffered substantial losses. DRRT was the international liaison counsel for its German investment company client and together with the U.S. local lead counsel obtained this successful result in 2013.
Citigroup (United States)
Substantial settlement for opt-out group in 2013
The action alleged that Citigroup concealed the extent of its ownership of toxic assets and the risks associated with them. Citigroup's disclosure of the real facts, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2007, caused the stock to drop precipitously until 2009. This placed Citigroup in serious danger of insolvency, averted only through a $300 billion emergency government bailout. The shareholder and bondholder class actions against Citigroup did not cover certain claims and securities. Therefore, opt-out claims from the class actions were the only option to maximize a loss recovery and to even assert claims for additional securities. DRRT successfully represented a large group of international institutional investors together with U.S. counsel and obtained recovery for its clients that exceeded the class action settlement recovery.
Bank of America (United States)
Substantial settlement for opt-out group in 2013
On January 1, 2009, BoA merged with Merrill Lynch, which was valued at approximately $24 billion on the date of the shareholder vote on the merger. Prior to the shareholder vote, however, the BoA Proxy Statement knowingly withheld from BoA shareholders the information that Merrill was facing record Q4/2008 losses exceeding $15 billion and that a secret addendum to the merger agreement provided for up to $5.8 billion in bonuses to be paid to Merrill employees prior to the close of the deal. These bonuses eventually totaled between $3-4 billion, which – together with the $15 billion quarterly losses – represented more than 75% of Merrill´s value at the time of the shareholder vote. DRRT represented a large group of institutional investors who either filed an opt-out complaint, entered into tolling agreements with BoA, or notified the claims administrator that they were opting out of the class proceeding (and settlement). DRRT and U.S. counsel successfully represented its clients and obtained a recovery several times that which would have been obtained through regular participation in the class action.
General Motors (United States)
$303 million U.S. class action settlement in July 2008
General Motors ("GM") and its auditor paid $303 million in a settlement over allegations that GM made material misstatements in its financials between 2000 and 2006. The settlement covered common stock and debt securities and was paid by GM ($277 million) and GM's outside auditor Deloitte & Touche ($26 million). It was alleged that the defendants issued or caused to be issued materially false and misleading statements to the investing public with respect to the company's financial performance and condition during the relevant period. The settlement ranked as one of the Top 25 settlements in U.S. securities class action history and was procured by a German mutual fund company. DRRT was liaison counsel to the lead plaintiff from Germany and together with the U.S.lead counsel obtained this result.
Royal Ahold (United States)
$1.1 billion class action settlement in 2006
On February 24, 2003, Royal Ahold announced that it had inflated earnings by at least $500 million. The Company reported that these overstatements of earnings occurred based on conduct at Ahold’s wholly owned subsidiary, U.S. Foodservice, Inc. On February 24, 2003, Ahold also informed investors that Ahold would restate its previously announced revenues because it had improperly reported revenues consolidated from certain joint ventures. Following Ahold’s February 24, 2003 announcement, the value of Ahold common stock and ADRs declined in value by more than 60%. Ahold eventually announced restatements exceeding $24 billion in revenues and $1.1 billion in income. Ahold’s conduct presented a misleading financial picture of Ahold to investors and artificially inflated the price of Ahold’s common stock and ADRs. DRRT successfully brought in a German client who had dealt with one of the investment banks, as a result of which the additional defendant was not dismissed and the settlement pool was increased significantly to reach the $1.1 billion U.S. settlement.