Deutsche Bank and former banker settle $176 million lawsuit for undisclosed sum - AOL

By Tom Sims

Updated Mon, September 7, 2026 at 8:09 AM EDT

FRANKFURT, Sept 7 (Reuters) - `Deutsche Bank said on Monday it has settled a lawsuit with a second former employee who sought damages in a case involving business with Italy's Monte dei Paschi, days ahead of a trial that threatened to embroil the bank's CEO.

The banker, Dario Schiraldi, had sought €152 million ($176.62 million) in damages. He was one of six former employees who had sued Germany's largest lender over alleged damage to their reputations over their business with Monte dei Paschi in 2008.

The bank has now settled with two of the six former employees who filed the suits. It said it had settled Schiraldi's case for an undisclosed sum.

A Frankfurt court, which was scheduled to hear Schiraldi's case starting on Thursday, confirmed that the plaintiff had withdrawn the case.

A lawyer for the banker did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"The parties have now resolved on a confidential basis all of the claims and allegations that Mr. Schiraldi has previously made against Deutsche Bank and its personnel," Deutsche Bank said in a statement.

Deutsche Bank said that there would be "only a small financial impact" on its third-quarter earnings.

It was the second settlement in the dispute, leaving the cases of the four other former Deutsche Bank staff who are claiming more than 600 million pounds ($812.16 million) in a London court.

Deutsche has previously described the cases as "without merit", saying that it "will defend itself against them robustly, including disputing the ​inflated, unrealistic alleged losses".

SCRUTINY ON SEWING

The claims stem from deals Deutsche Bank did with Monte dei Paschi in ​2008. These initially resulted in convictions for the bankers and Deutsche Bank in Italy ⁠for allegedly colluding with MPS to hide losses.

The convictions were overturned in 2022, but the bankers then sued Deutsche Bank, alleging damage to their reputations for being blamed for the trades.

The lawsuits have increased scrutiny over how Deutsche Bank CEO Christian Sewing, who is credited with ​cleaning up the bank's ​image, handled the matter ⁠before he was appointed as chief executive in 2018.

In 2013, Deutsche Bank handed Sewing the sensitive task of investigating the trades in question in an audit.

A central allegation in the damages' case is that Sewing and Deutsche Bank scapegoated the bankers and ​later failed ⁠to set the record straight.

Deutsche Bank on Monday declined to comment on the Frankfurt case but said last year that its allegations were "false", that the audit had been thorough and independent, and that executives involved "discharged their responsibilities appropriately".

($1 = 0.8606 euros)

($1 = 0.7388 pounds)

(Reporting by Tom Sims; Editing by Miranda Murray and Susan Fenton)

By Nupur Anand and Jonathan Stempel

Updated Thu, September 10, 2026 at 6:09 AM EDT

NEW YORK, Sept 10 (Reuters) - As U.S. President Donald Trump pressures institutions he views as adversaries, JPMorgan Chase and Capital One are fighting back. It is a strategy that legal experts and industry sources say may carry fewer risks than giving in.

Trump and his businesses are suing the banks, alleging they closed his accounts in 2021 for political reasons. They deny the claims. Capital One told a federal court in July that it closed Trump's accounts following an internal anti-money-laundering review, sparking renewed scrutiny including from a senior Democratic senator who last week pressed the bank for more details.

Capital One has not accused Trump or his businesses of money-laundering. Spokespeople for both banks declined to comment. The Trump Organization last week called the anti-money-laundering review a pretext to conceal a politically motivated decision.

While several legal experts said the banks have strong defenses, fighting Trump poses risks for the banks by potentially deepening animus with the president and airing confidential internal deliberations in public.

But settling could be more hazardous. It could encourage lawsuits from many other customers claiming they were similarly "debanked," half a dozen legal experts and banking industry sources said. A federal bank regulator is probing about 100,000 such complaints against multiple banks and is expected to soon release its findings.

"The larger risk of settling is we don't know what the Trump family might demand," said Todd Zywicki, a George Mason University law professor who has worked with Trump's transition and agency review teams on federal financial oversight.

"It could invite additional lawsuits by people who faced adverse actions over their bank accounts and, depending on the terms of individual settlements, provide information to anyone who claims they were debanked," Zywicki added.

Debanking occurs when a bank cuts off an account holder’s access to services, often because of concern about legal, financial or reputational risks.

A spokesperson for Trump's legal team said Capital One, JPMorgan and other major institutions debanked the president, his family and businesses for "blatantly" political reasons.

"President Trump's powerful lawsuits are holding these bad actors accountable for their disgraceful conduct," the spokesperson said.

LEGAL EXPERTS SAY BANKS HAVE STRONG CASES

Republicans have for years accused Wall Street banks of discriminatory left-leaning "woke" policies to cut off services to religious or conservative groups and conservative-aligned industries such as fossil-fuel companies and gunmakers.

Trump has ratcheted up that pressure.

In a civil lawsuit filed in March 2025, his son Eric Trump and the Trump Organization alleged Capital One closed more than 300 accounts following the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol because of the bank's political bias and "woke" beliefs. They are seeking unspecified damages and a court declaration that the closures were politically motivated.

Then in January 2026, Trump sued JPMorgan and CEO Jamie Dimon, accusing them of closing his accounts to promote a "woke" agenda. Trump is seeking at least $5 billion in damages and a declaration that the bank acted unlawfully.

The law is generally on banks' side because customer agreements typically confer broad discretion to close accounts, said several legal experts and a top industry source familiar with the issues, although lenders frequently say federal regulations are the primary reason for doing so.

Capital One and JPMorgan have cited that discretion in their defenses. Capital One said its account closures resulted from a careful review by its AML team "in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidance." A judge has tossed two versions of the complaint in that case, but allowed amendments.

JPMorgan has called Trump's $5 billion lawsuit meritless, and said it does not close accounts on political grounds.

"For banks, the strength of the case is always a key factor in deciding whether to settle or litigate — even when the other party is the president," said Ed Mills, a Raymond James banking analyst.

TARGETS FARE WELL WHEN THEY FIGHT BACK

The Trump administration has targeted other perceived adversaries, including media organizations, law firms and universities, for what it has said are valid course corrections, necessary probes of wrongdoing and legitimate policy initiatives.

Some of those cases have shown that targets who push back in court can fare well, said one source who is not working on the banks' cases but familiar with the issues.

Several law firms, for example, won rulings blocking administration measures. Some firms that reached deals, meanwhile, have been accused by other lawyers and media commentators of attempting to curry favor with the administration.

While banks frequently settle civil litigation, doing so where the allegations concern systemic practices can expose them to broader financial harm, legal experts said. Settlements relating to the 2007 to 2009 mortgage crisis and later rate-rigging scandals, for example, generated years of follow-on litigation.

Cryptocurrency companies, gun groups and others have also complained about being debanked.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is probing around 100,000 debanking complaints as well as banks' internal lending policies, including those of Capital One and JPMorgan. The Justice Department is also probing debanking allegations, Reuters and others reported in June.

If Capital One and JPMorgan ever appeared to concede that they closed accounts without sufficient grounds, they could open themselves to additional lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny and compensation claims, two of the banking sources said.

The banks can also afford the best defense from top litigators. JPMorgan has hired Jones Day, a major firm with ties to Republican administrations, including Trump's, while Capital One is using Debevoise & Plimpton.

The firms did not respond to requests for comment.

"Both these banks are led by formidable CEOs ... who have a proven track record," said Todd Baker, senior fellow at the Richman Center for Business, Law and Public Policy at Columbia University. "They are not afraid to take risks."

(Reporting by Nupur Anand and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Michelle Price and Matthew Lewis)

MILAN, Sept 7 (Reuters) - Intesa Sanpaolo expects by 2028 to achieve 60% of the €2.9 billion ($3.4 billion) in gross financial benefits envisaged from its proposed takeover of rival Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS), Intesa said in a document.

Italy's biggest bank has said it expects to reach the full target in 2029, with the overall pre-tax benefits split almost equally between higher revenue and cost savings.

Intesa published on its website on Monday responses to questions submitted by shareholders ahead of a September 10 vote on the €35.7 billion share-and-cash offer for MPS.

($1 = 0.8604 euros)

(Reporting by Valentina Za. Editing by Mark Potter)

By Valentina Za and Gianluca Semeraro

Updated Fri, September 11, 2026 at 4:12 AM EDT

MILAN, Sept 11 (Reuters) - The latest twist in Italy's banking takeover saga has pitted market leader Intesa Sanpaolo against the biggest winner of the shakeup so far, Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS).

With a less concentrated banking sector than France or Spain, Italy has seen a wave of bids and counterbids since late 2024 as lenders jockey for position amid a revival in dealmaking fuelled by stronger balance sheets and excess capital.

The deal frenzy has baffled even seasoned observers, with MPS now pursuing a two-pronged defence strategy to try to fend off Intesa's takeover approach. Intesa on Thursday secured shareholder approval for the share financing of its plan.

WHAT'S THE LATEST?

The first merger wave has reshaped Italy's second-tier banking sector, which sits below industry giants Intesa and UniCredit.

A long-running political ambition to create a third major group has helped transform MPS, which was rescued by Rome in 2017 and reprivatised in 2023-2024, into an unlikely acquirer.

Last year, MPS bought bigger rival Mediobanca and, through that deal, became the leading shareholder in Generali, Italy's biggest insurer, which both Intesa and UniCredit covet.

After UniCredit built a 9% stake in Generali last year, Intesa launched its €35 billion ($41 billion) cash-and-shares bid for MPS in June. The deal would give Intesa roughly 13% of Generali, control of Mediobanca and half of MPS's branch network.

Critical of Intesa's plan to break up its retail network, MPS initially explored a merger proposed by mid-sized peer Banco BPM hours before Intesa unveiled its offer.

When talks with BPM broke down last month, MPS responded with all-share bids for both BPM and wealth manager Banca Generali.

MPS's Generali stake is now key to its defence strategy.

The bank plans to use part of that holding to reward shareholders, who would receive €3 billion in cash as part of the mainly share-based offer from Intesa.

Generali CEO Philippe Donnet has also emerged as an important ally for MPS boss Luigi Lovaglio, with the insurer now open to exploring commercial deals with the Tuscan bank.

Generali, which competes with Intesa in life insurance, owns 50.2% of Banca Generali and could choose to tender its stake.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

MPS shareholders are due to vote on the defence plan on October 29.

Thursday's approval of Intesa's financing plans was widely expected. The real uncertainty now centres on the October vote.

Investors remain cautious about MPS' €37 billion twin bids for BPM and Banca Generali, with shares in both targets trading below the offer values.

Still, several people close to Intesa told Reuters the scheme had significantly complicated its takeover plans by creating uncertainty and confusing investors.

WHAT'S THE COMPLICATION?

Intesa is awaiting European Central Bank and antitrust approvals for its bid, with the tender offer expected to begin only after MPS shareholders vote on its defence plan.

MPS investors could approve its twin bids and still choose to tender their shares into Intesa's offer.

Intesa is counting on completing its offer by the end of December, before MPS has a chance to launch its own bids.

COULD UNICREDIT MAKE A MOVE?

UniCredit's 9% Generali stake has given it sway in the Intesa-MPS battle.

Now that its two-year pursuit of Commerzbank has left it with de facto control of the German lender, UniCredit could refocus on Italy, where it has so far failed to make a mark in the consolidation wave, bankers said.

UniCredit CEO Andrea Orcel has said he may forego domestic acquisitions rather than overpay.

Bankers don't expect Orcel to disrupt Intesa's plans directly, and instead view Banco BPM and Banca Generali as potential targets for UniCredit.

WHAT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S STANCE?

The government has maintained a neutral position in the latest banking tussle and is not expected to participate in the October vote with its remaining 4.9% stake in MPS.

($1 = 0.8603 euros)

(Additional reporting by Elvira Pollina and Giulio Piovaccari in Milan and Giuseppe Fonte in Rome. Editing by Tommy Reggiori Wilkes and Mark Potter)