Skip to main content

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

S.D.N.Y.April 17, 2013No. No. 11 Civ. 733(WHP)Cited 3 times
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 in shareholder securities fraud action

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System settled securities fraud claims against Bank of America Corp. regarding misrepresentations related to mortgage-backed securities and subprime mortgage exposure.

What This Ruling Means

# Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corp. **What Happened** Pennsylvania's public school employee retirement fund sued Bank of America, claiming the bank made false statements about mortgage-backed securities it sold. These are financial products tied to home loans. The retirement fund alleged Bank of America hid the true risks—particularly exposure to risky subprime mortgages—when marketing these investments. **What the Court Decided** The case settled in 2013, meaning both sides agreed to resolve the dispute without a trial. No specific damages amount was publicly reported, though the settlement allowed the retirement fund to recover some losses from its investment. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows that pension funds—which provide retirement income for teachers and other public employees—actively pursue companies that defraud them. When retirement funds recover money through settlements, those dollars go back into pension accounts, protecting workers' future retirement benefits. The case also highlights why companies must be honest about investment risks, as dishonest practices can harm the financial security of millions of working people and retirees.

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.