Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 19, 2025

Roth v. Deutsche Telekom AG

Judge
John Koeltl
Docket
1:25-cv-01137
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSecurities
In one sentence

In Roth v. Deutsche Telekom AG, Judge Koeltl granted the parties’ joint request to stay the case while related Second Circuit appeals are resolved.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Andrew E. Roth, nominal defendant T-Mobile US, Inc., and defendants Deutsche Telekom AG and Deutsche Telekom Holding B.V.; the stay pauses the case and delays the defendants’ response to the complaint.

What happened

Roth v. Deutsche Telekom AG concerns a lawsuit based on the theory that stock sales by statutory insiders can be matched with a company’s stock repurchases under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The plaintiff, nominal defendant T-Mobile US, Inc., and defendants Deutsche Telekom AG and Deutsche Telekom Holding B.V. jointly asked the court to pause the case while the Second Circuit decides two related appeals. They said those appeals address legal questions relevant to this lawsuit and that a stay would conserve judicial resources without prejudicing the parties or others.

Judge John G. Koeltl granted the stay request. The defendants do not have to answer the complaint, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond while the stay is in effect; the parties proposed submitting a response schedule within 30 days after the later final disposition of the two appeals.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Roth v. Deutsche Telekom AG · No. 1:25-cv-01137
Judge
John Koeltl
Date
Mar. 19, 2025

Background

Plaintiff Andrew E. Roth, nominal defendant T-Mobile US, Inc., and defendants Deutsche Telekom AG and Deutsche Telekom Holding B.V. jointly requested a stay of the action. The parties agreed that the defendants would accept service of the summons and complaint effective as of the date of the joint letter motion.

The complaint is based on the theory that stock sales by statutory insiders can be matched with an issuer’s repurchase of its own stock under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The parties identified two related appeals pending in the Second Circuit: the appeal in a prior related proceeding, No. 24-2464, and the appeal in another related proceeding, No. 24-2761. According to the joint letter, the appeals raise whether an issuer’s share repurchases can be attributed to its controlling stockholders for Section 16(b) purposes and whether a controlling stockholder has an indirect financial interest in the issuer’s repurchases under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 16a-1(a)(2).

Oral argument in both appeals occurred on March 6, 2025, and the Second Circuit had taken the matters under advisement. The parties asked to stay this action until the appeals were finally resolved, including any appeal of the Second Circuit’s decisions to the Supreme Court. They stated that the stay would conserve judicial resources, would not prejudice any party or nonparty, and would not interfere with existing court deadlines.

Ruling

Judge John G. Koeltl granted the joint request for a stay. During the stay, the defendants were not required to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the complaint. The parties proposed submitting a schedule for those responses within 30 days after the later final disposition of the two appeals.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.