Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Donald J. Trump Casino Securities Litigation-Taj Mahal Litigation

filed: October 14, 1993; As Corrected November 23, 1993.

IN RE: DONALD J. TRUMP CASINO SECURITIES LITIGATION -TAJ MAHAL LITIGATION SIDNEY L. KAUFMAN, SUING INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED; JEROME SCHWARTZ, SUING INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED; PETER STUYVESANT, LTD., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; SUSAN CAGAN; ERIC CAGAN; DAVID E. DOUGHERTY; JEAN CURZIO; ALEXANDER L. CHARNIS; DOROTHY ARKELL; FRED GLOSSNER; HERMAN KRANGEL; ROBERT KLOSS; HELEN KLOSS; FAIRMOUNT FINANCIAL CORP.; JOANNE GOLLOMP; DINO DEL ZOTTO
v.
TRUMP'S CASTLE FUNDING; TRUMP'S CASTLE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FUNDING, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; DONALD J. TRUMP; ROBERT S. TRUMP; JOHN O'DONNELL; NATHAN KATZ; TIM MALAND; FRANCISCO TEJEDA; JULIAN MENARGUEZ; HARVEY I. FREEMAN; PAUL HENDERSON; PATRICK C. MCKOY; EDWARD M. TRACY; MICHAEL S. VAUTRIN; JEFFREY A. ROSS; JOHN P. BELISLE; TIMOTHY G. ROSE; LORI TAYLOR; C. "BUCKY" WILLARD; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL, INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED SIDNEY L. KAUFMAN, SUING INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED V. TRUMP'S CASTLE FUNDING; TRUMP'S CASTLE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FUNDING, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; DONALD J. TRUMP JEROME SCHWARTZ, SUING INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED V. TRUMP'S CASTLE FUNDING, INC., (A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION); TRUMP'S CASTLE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (A NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP); TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FUNDING, INC. (A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION); TRUMP TAJ MAHAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (A NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP); DONALD J. TRUMP PETER STUYVESANT, LTD., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED V. DONALD J. TRUMP; ROBERT S. TRUMP; JOHN O'DONNELL; TRUMP PLAZA FUNDING, INC.; NATHAN KATZ; TIM MALAND; TRUMP PLAZA ASSOCIATES; FRANCISCO TEJEDA; JULIAN MENARGUEZ; HARVEY I. FREEMAN; PAUL HENDERSON; PATRICK C. MCKOY; EDWARD M. TRACY; MICHAEL S. VAUTRIN; JEFFREY A. ROSS; JOHN P. BELISLE; TIMOTHY G. ROSE; TRUMP'S CASTLE FUNDING, INC.; LORI TAYLOR; TRUMP'S CASTLE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SUSAN CAGAN; ERIC CAGAN; DAVID E. DOUGHERTY; JEAN CURZIO V. DONALD J. TRUMP, ROBERT S. TRUMP; HARVEY I. FREEMAN; C. "BUCKY" WILLARD; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FUNDING, INC.; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL INCORPORATED; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED ALEXANDER L. CHARNIS; DOROTHY ARKELL V. DONALD J. TRUMP; ROBERT S. TRUMP; HARVEY I. FREEMAN; C. "BUCKY" WILLARD; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FUNDING, INC.; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED FAIRMONT FINANCIAL CORP.; JOANNE GOLLOMP, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED V. DONALD J. TRUMP; HARVEY S. FREEMAN; ROBERT S. TRUMP; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FUNDING, INC.; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL, INC.; TRUMP TAJ ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ROBERT KLOSS; HELEN KLOSS V. DONALD J. TRUMP; ROBERT S. TRUMP; HARVEY I. FREEMAN; C. "BUCKY" WILLARD; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL, INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED FRED GLOSSNER; HERMAN KRANGEL V. DONALD J. TRUMP; HARVEY S. FREEMAN; ROBERT S. TRUMP; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FUNDING, INC.; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL, INC.; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP DINO DEL ZOTTO V. DONALD J. TRUMP; ROBERT S. TRUMP; HARVEY I. FREEMAN; C. "BUCKY" WILLARD; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FUNDING, INC.; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL ASSOCIATES; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; TRUMP TAJ MAHAL, INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED JOANNE GOLLOMP, SUSAN CAGAN, ERIC CAGAN, DAVID E. DOUGHERTY, JEAN CURZIO, ROBERT AND HELEN KLOSS, FRED GLOSSNER, HERMAN KRANGEL, SIDNEY KAUFMAN, JEROME SCHWARTZ, DINO DEL ZOTTO, ALEXANDER L. CHARNIS AND DOROTHY ARKELL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANTS



On Appeal From the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. (D.C. No. 90-MC-919). (D.C. No. 90-02349). (D.C. Civil No. 90-02350). (D.C. Civil No. 90-05004). (D.C. Civil No. 90-05051). (D.C. Civil No. 90-05052). (D.C. Civil No. 91-00018). (D.C. Civil No. 91-0019). (D.C. Civil No. 91-00020). (D.C. Civil No. 92-00621). (D.C. Civil Nos. 90-MC-919, 90-02349, 90-02350, 90-05004, 90-05051, 90-05052, 91-00018, 91-00019, 91-00020, 92-00621).

Before: Becker, Alito, Circuit Judges and Atkins, District Judge*fn*

Author: Becker

Opinion OF THE COURT

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from orders of the district court for the District of New Jersey dismissing a number of complaints brought under various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by a class of investors who purchased bonds to provide financing for the acquisition and completion of the Taj Mahal, a lavish casino/hotel on the boardwalk in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The defendants are Donald J. Trump ("Trump"), Robert S. Trump, Harvey S. Freeman, the Trump Organization Inc., Trump Taj Mahal Inc., Taj Mahal Funding Inc. and Trump Taj Mahal Associates Limited Partnership (the "Partnership")*fn1 (collectively the "Trump defendants") and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Inc. ("Merrill Lynch"). The complaints allege that the prospectus accompanying the issuance of the bonds contained affirmatively misleading statements and materially misleading omissions in contravention of the federal securities laws.

The district court dismissed the securities law claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The linchpin of the district court's decision was what has been described as the "bespeaks caution" doctrine, according to which a court may determine that the inclusion of sufficient cautionary statements in a prospectus renders misrepresentations and omissions contained therein nonactionable. While the viability of the bespeaks caution doctrine is an issue of first impression for this court, we believe that it primarily represents new nomenclature rather than substantive change in the law. As we see it, "bespeaks caution" is essentially shorthand for the well-established principle that a statement or omission must be considered in context, so that accompanying statements may render it immaterial as a matter of law.

We believe that the bespeaks caution doctrine is both viable and applicable to the facts of this appeal. The prospectus here took considerable care to convey to potential investors the extreme risks inherent in the venture while simultaneously carefully alerting the investors to a variety of obstacles the Taj Mahal would face, all of which were relevant to a potential investor's decision concerning purchase of the bonds. We conclude that, given these warning signals in the text of the prospectus itself, the plaintiffs cannot establish that a reasonable investor would find the alleged misstatements and omissions material to his or her decision to invest in the Taj Mahal. Hence we will affirm the district court's orders.

Inasmuch as some plaintiffs filed their complaints in other districts, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") transferred them to the district court for the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (as opposed to a transfer for all purposes, such as under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 1406), the question arises whether the district court possessed authority to issue dispositive pre-trial orders terminating the cases so transferred. It seems to be widely accepted that § 1407 and the rules promulgated thereunder empower a transferee court to enter dispositive orders to terminate a case, but there is no reported case law so holding. We take this opportunity to confirm the power of the transferee court to enter a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

I. Facts and Procedural History

In November, 1988 the Trump defendants offered to the public $675 million in first mortgage investment bonds (the "bonds") with Merrill Lynch acting as the sole underwriter. The interest rate on the bonds was 14%, a high rate in comparison to the 9% yield offered on quality corporate bonds at the time. The Trump defendants issued the bonds to raise capital to: (1) purchase the Taj Mahal, a partially-completed casino/hotel located on the boardwalk, from Resorts International, Inc. (which had already invested substantial amounts in its construction); (2) complete construction of the Taj Mahal; and (3) open the Taj Mahal for business.

As is well-known, the Taj Mahal was widely touted as Atlantic City's largest and most lavish casino resort. When ultimately opened in April, 1990 it was at least twice the size of any other casino in Atlantic City. It consisted of a 42-story hotel tower that contained approximately 1,250 guest rooms and an adjacent low-rise building encompassing roughly 155,000 square feet of meeting, ballroom and convention space, a 120,000 square foot casino, and numerous restaurants, lounges and stores. The entire structure occupied approximately seventeen acres of land.

The prospectus accompanying the bonds estimated the completion cost of the Taj Mahal, including the payment of interest on the bonds for the first fifteen months of operation, at $805 million. It explained that, to obtain that amount, the Trump defendants were relying on the $675 million in bond proceeds, a $75 million capital contribution by Donald Trump, investment income derived from those sums, a contingent additional loan of $25 million from the Trump Line of Credit, and loans from other sources.

Plaintiffs ground their lawsuits in the text of the prospectus. Their strongest attack focuses on the "Management Discussion and Analysis" ("MD&A") section of the prospectus, which stated: "The Partnership believes that funds generated from the operation of the Taj Mahal will be sufficient to cover all of its debt service (interest and principal)." See Complaint at P 32. The plaintiffs' primary contention is that this statement was materially misleading because the defendants possessed neither a genuine nor a reasonable belief in its truth. However, as the defendants emphasize, the prospectus contained numerous disclaimers and cautionary statements in conjunction with this statement. The cautionary statements stressed, among other things: the intense competition in the casino industry; the absence of an operating history for the Taj Mahal which could serve as a basis for its valuation; the unprecedented size of the Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City; and the enterprise's potential inability to repay the interest on the bonds in the event of a mortgage default and subsequent liquidation of the Taj Mahal.

After learning that the Trump defendants planned to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and establish a reorganization plan, various bondholders filed separate complaints in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York and the District of New Jersey. The complaints each alleged that the prospectus accompanying the issuance of the bonds contained material misrepresentations and material omissions in violation of the 1933 and 1934 Acts. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the JPML subsequently transferred the complaints for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to the District of New Jersey. See MDL Docket No. 864 (In re Donald J. Trump Sec. Litig.).

The consolidated complaints pleaded four counts. In count one, the plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus contained misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in violation of §§ 11,*fn2 12(2)*fn3 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k(a), 77l (2), 77o. Count two of the complaints alleged fraud in the prospectus, based on the same alleged misrepresentations and omissions, but in violation of §§ 10(b)*fn4 and 20(a)*fn5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") and Rule 10(b)(5)*fn6 promulgated thereunder, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10(b)-5. Counts three and four alleged state common law claims.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that the plaintiffs had failed to state actionable securities fraud claims, and also pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), contending that the plaintiffs failed to plead their fraud allegations with sufficient particularity. The district court granted the defendants' motion under Rule 12(b)(6), reasoning that the abundance of cautionary statements that directly addressed the alleged misrepresentations and omissions rendered the plaintiffs' claims nonactionable as a matter of law. See In re Donald J. Trump Casino Sec. Litig., 793 F. Supp. 543 (D.N.J. 1992). The district court also rejected the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaints to add allegations based on an appraisal of the future value of the Taj Mahal which had been issued by the accounting firm of Laventhol and Horwath ("the Laventhol Report"). The district court did not reach the defendants' motion to dismiss based on Rule 9(b). Having disposed of the federal claims, the court subsequently dismissed the plaintiffs' claims of breach of fiduciary duty and false advertising without prejudice for lack of pendent jurisdiction. 793 F. Supp. at 568. This appeal followed.

The district court had jurisdiction over the federal securities law claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 77v and 78aa and over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Marshall-Silver Constr. Co. v. Mendel, 894 F.2d 593, 595 (3d Cir. 1990). In this regard, we must accept the plaintiffs' factual allegations as true and give the plaintiffs the benefit of the inferences which we may fairly draw from them. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1974).

II. The Parties' Contentions

The plaintiffs allege that the prospectus contained material misrepresentations. Their principal claim is that the defendants had neither an honest belief in nor a reasonable basis for one statement in the MD&A section of the prospectus: "The Partnership believes that funds generated from the operation of the Taj Mahal will be sufficient to cover all of its debt service (interest and principal)." Before the district court and again before us, the plaintiffs concentrate on this statement and its allegedly misleading character.

The plaintiffs also argue that the prospectus was misleading in its omission of allegedly material information. The plaintiffs submit that the prospectus failed to disclose, inter alia, that: 1) the Taj Mahal required an average "casino win" of approximately $1.3 million per day on a continuing basis in order to service its debtload; 2) Donald Trump had personally guaranteed hundreds of millions of dollars in bank loans for other properties; and 3) the Taj Mahal had an "unprecedented" debt to equity ratio.*fn7 The plaintiffs contend that these allegedly material misrepresentations and omissions form the basis for actionable securities fraud claims and that, to the extent that the prospectus contained cautionary language, the district court improperly considered the effect of this language on a motion to dismiss.

The defendants respond that the myriad warnings and cautionary statements contained in the prospectus sufficiently disclosed to the bondholders the multifarious risks inherent in the investment. With respect to the plaintiffs' primary argument -- that the statement relating the Partnership's belief in the Taj Mahal's capacity to generate ample income for the Partnership to make full payment on the bonds was materially misleading -- the defendants contend that there was also adequate cautionary language surrounding this statement to render it nonactionable as a matter of law. That is, they insist that when a prospectus (such as this one) contains abundant warnings and cautionary statements which qualify the statements plaintiffs claim they relied upon, plaintiffs cannot, as a matter of law, contend that they were misled by the alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions.

III. The District Court's Authority to Terminate

the Case Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407

As we noted above, the JPML transferred a number of complaints that different plaintiffs had filed in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York to the District of New Jersey for consolidated pre-trial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. At oral argument, the question arose whether the district court possessed the authority to terminate the transferred cases under Rule 12(b)(6). Surprisingly, no judicial precedent addresses this point, so we take this opportunity to make clear that § 1407 empowers transferee courts to enter a dispositive pre-trial order terminating a case.

Section 1407 authorizes the consolidation and transfer of civil actions containing common questions of fact "for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings." 28 U.S.C. ยง 1407(a). The section further directs that the transferee court should remand the case to the transferor court "unless it shall have been previously terminated," which suggests that Congress contemplated that transferee courts would dismiss cases in response ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.