 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Citigroup Inc. : Auction Rate Securities Summary: A press release dated August 26, 2008 announced that Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP ("Zwerling Schachter") filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") in In re Citigroup Auction Rate Securities Litigation, Master File No. 08 Civ. 3095 (LTS)(FM). The Complaint is brought on behalf of investors who purchased auction rate securities underwritten and/or sold in auctions managed by defendants Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. and Smith Barney ("Citigroup ARS"). The Complaint alleges that from August 1, 2007 through February 11, 2008 (the "Class Period") defendants manipulated the market for Citigroup ARS by fostering the illusion that a valid market existed where buyers and sellers came together, with supply and demand in balance, allowing for the successful completion of auctions of Citigroup ARS. In fact, no such balance existed.
According to a press release dated March 27, 2008, the Complaint alleges that Citigroup violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of auction rate securities and the auction market in which these securities traded. Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set at periodic "auctions." Auction rate securities generally have long-term maturities or no maturity dates.
The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, Citigroup offered and sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds. According to the Complaint, holders of auction rate securities sold by Citigroup and other broker-dealers have been unable to liquidate their positions in these securities following the decision on February 13, 2008 of all major broker-dealers including Citigroup to "withdraw their support" for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction rates securities are set.
The Complaint alleges that Citigroup failed to disclose the following material facts about the auction rate securities it sold to the class: (1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives, like money market funds, but were instead, complex, long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity dates, or longer; (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the time of sale because Citigroup and other broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) Citigroup and other broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and (4) Citigroup continued to market auction rate securities as liquid investments after it had determined that it and other broker dealers were likely to withdraw their support for the periodic auctions and that a "freeze" of the market for auction rate securities would result.
On September 11, 2009, an Opinion and Order in regards to the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted, without prejudice to Plaintiffs ability to file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint must be filed and served by October 1, 2009.
On June 12, 2009, this case was associated with consolidated MDL case: 1:09-md-02043.
On September 11, 2009, an Opinion and Order in regards to the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted, without prejudice to Plaintiffs ability to file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint must be filed and served by October 1, 2009.
On October 15, 2009, a second amended consolidated complaint was filed in this action.
On Novemeber 02, 2009, an order by one of the plaintiffs (Ocwen Financial) was granted voluntarily dismissing the claims against the defendants with prejudice. However, the claims of two other plaintiffs were not dismissed.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6021
Sector: Financial
Industry: Money Center Banks
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Citigroup Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | C |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.citigroup.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| LHB Insurance Brokerage Inc., et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/26/2008 | ||
| Order Consolidating Cases Appointing Lead Plaintiff And Approving Selection Of Lead Plaintiff's Counsel | |||
| Type: Order Appointing LP/LC | Date on the document: 6/25/2008 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: Citigroup Auction Rate Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Complaint | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 8/25/2008 | ||
| US District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 8/26/2008 | ||
| Notice Of Motion To Dismiss | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 10/24/2008 | ||
| Opinion and Order | |||
| Type: Settlement | Date on the document: 09/11/2009 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 09/23/2009 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Lisa Swanson, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/27/2008 | ||
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top