Skip to main content

Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corp.

S.D.N.Y.July 11, 2012No. No. 11 Civ. 733 (WHP)Cited 30 times
SettlementBank of America Corp$2,250,000,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
III
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Settlement approved in securities class action and derivative litigation

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Shareholders' derivative and securities class action against Bank of America settled for significant damages related to allegations of misrepresentation and improper disclosure regarding mortgage-backed securities and financial practices.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** The Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System and other investors sued Bank of America, claiming the bank lied about risky mortgage-backed securities during the 2008 financial crisis. The lawsuit alleged that Bank of America executives made false statements about the bank's financial health and failed to properly disclose the risks of these investments. Essentially, investors argued they were misled about how dangerous these mortgage securities really were, causing them significant financial losses when the housing market collapsed. **What the Court Decided** Rather than go to trial, Bank of America agreed to settle the case for $2.25 billion. This massive settlement meant the bank admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to pay shareholders who lost money due to the alleged deception. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case is significant for workers, especially those with retirement funds invested in large corporations. Many public employees' pension plans, like the one that brought this lawsuit, invest worker retirement money in stocks and securities. When companies mislead investors about their financial risks, it can devastate retirement savings. This settlement demonstrates that workers and their pension funds can successfully hold corporations accountable for deceptive practices that threaten retirement security.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

McGhee
N.C. Ct. App.Sep 2005

<bold>1. Workers' Compensation — timeliness of claim —</bold> <bold>last medical payment — foreign jurisdiction</bold> <block_quote> A workers' compensation claim was timely filed because it was within two years of the last medical compensation paid by defendants, even though the payment was to medical providers in Virginia. Nothing in the statutory definition of medical compensation limits the location to North Carolina, nor is there an exception<page_number>Page 423</page_number> for the employer's presumption that the claim will be in a foreign jurisdiction. N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>97-24</cross_reference>.</block_quote> <bold>2. Workers' Compensation — timeliness of claim</bold> <bold>— short-term disability payments — not "other</bold> <bold>compensation"</bold> <block_quote> Short-term disability benefits paid in lieu of workers' compensation were not paid pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act, and did not qualify as "other compensation" for timeliness purposes under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>97-24</cross_reference>.</block_quote> <bold>3. Workers' Compensation — appeal — failure</bold> <bold>to assign error — findings binding</bold> <block_quote> Failure to assign error in a workers' compensation case to findings about plaintiff's medical history and incapacity for employment meant that those findings were binding on appeal. The Industrial Commission's conclusion that plaintiff is totally disabled was upheld.</block_quote> <bold>4. Workers' Compensation — offered part-time</bold> <bold>employment — make-work</bold> <block_quote> The evidence in a workers' compensation case supported the finding that a part-time position offered to plaintiff was make-work and did not constitute other employment as defined by N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>97-2</cross_reference>(9).</block_quote> <bold>5. Workers' Compensation — medical care —</bold> <bold>effectiveness</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission did not err in a workers' compe

Plaintiff Win
Gambello
E.D.N.Y.Feb 2002
Defendant Win
Schaffer
S.D.N.Y.Nov 2025
Dismissed
London
S.D.N.Y.Nov 2025
Dismissed
S.D.N.Y.Nov 2025
Remanded

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.