Last October, Manhattan federal district court judge Robert Sweet issued an opinion that allowed the video recording of a breach-of-contract bench trial pitting E*Trade against Deutsche Bank. Judge Sweet made the decision over objections by Deutsche Bank’s attorneys at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who now have another reason to oppose a public airing of the trial: They lost. On Monday, Judge Sweet issued a 217-page opinion (available in four parts, here, here, here, and here), finding for E*Trade on all of its breach-of-contract claims and awarding it approximately $18 million in damages, plus costs and attorneys’ fees.

Douglas Lobel of Cooley Godward Kronish, who represented E*Trade at the 13-day trial last fall, gave us some background on the case, which was filed four-and-a-half years ago. The dispute involved two related companies that E*Trade acquired from Deutsche Bank in a pair of transactions that took place in 2002 and 2003. E*Trade alleged that Deutsche Bank knowingly overstated the value of a deferred tax asset on the balance sheet of one of the companies; Deutsche valued it at about $15.3 million but E*Trade found it to be worthless. At trial, Lobel said, Deutsche argued that it had correctly valued the asset, and that even if it had not, E*Trade should have learned its true value through due diligence.

“The judge rejected that,” Lobel told us. Rather resoundingly: Judge Sweet awarded E*Trade all the monetary relief it sought, even though he denied its fraud claims.

We left a message with Scott Musoff of Skadden, who represented Deutsche Bank at trial. We’ll update this post if we hear back from him.

In the meantime, if you want to watch the trial, here’s the video, available (for a price) at Courtroom View Network.