Skip to main content
Contact

Practice Areas › Alternative Investments

DBSI Private Actions Trust Litigation

A liquidating trust pursued claims assigned by DBSI investors against the brokers who had sold the securities. It was not a single case — related proceedings ran in more than one federal court and in arbitration. The record below is from the federal court actions.

The matter

A bankruptcy trust bringing investors’ claims against their brokers.

Lead caption

James R. Zazzali, Trustee for the DBSI Private Actions Trust v. Brewer Financial Services, LLC, et al.

Forums

U.S. District Court, District of Idaho
U.S. District Court, District of Delaware
Related securities arbitrations

Role

Defense

Record below

17 principal filings, including two written opinions

Nearly 100 Diversified Business Services & Investments (“DBSI”) entities filed for bankruptcy in November 2008. Under the Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation, DBSI’s creditors and equity holders assigned their causes of action against securities brokers and dealers to the Private Actions Trust.

The trustee’s theory was that the assignors had acquired DBSI securities through the defendants — brokers, registered representatives and their control persons — and that those defendants facilitated the sale of securities that turned out to be part of a fraudulent Ponzi scheme.

The amended complaint pleaded six causes of action: violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, control person liability under section 20(a), breach of contract, common law fraud, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Three independent grounds were briefed rather than one. Failure to state a claim, improper venue, and lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction each stood alone — so the complaint had to survive all three. The court issued written opinions on two of them.

The proceedings were related but separate. Claims assigned to the trust were pursued against representative defendants in more than one forum, which is why venue and standing were live questions in their own right rather than technicalities.

More than half

of the representative defendants dismissed with prejudice. The remainder were positioned to settle for nominal amounts measured against the damages claimed.

The defendants were not only broker-dealers. A registered investment adviser named in the action was also dismissed.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every matter turns on its own facts, its own record and its own forum. Nothing on this page is legal advice. See our Attorney Advertising, Legal Notices & Disclaimers.

The record

The filings that decided it.

A selection of the material filings from the federal actions, reproduced as filed — not the full docket. They are published because the reasoning is more useful than a description of it would be. The arbitrations are not represented here.

The complaint

Rule 12(b)(6) — failure to state a claim

Rule 12(b)(3) — improper venue

Rule 12(b)(1) — standing and subject matter jurisdiction

Facing a claim like this one?

We would appreciate hearing from you.

Contact the firm