Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. : Auction Rate Securities

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. : Auction Rate Securities Summary: According to a press release dated April 11, 2008, the class action is brought against Oppenheimer Holdings Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc, Oppenheimer Asset Management and Freedom Investments Inc. (collectively, "Oppenheimer"), in connection with the sale of auction rate securities, auction rate preferred stock, auction market preferred stock, variable rate preferred securities, money market preferred securities, periodic auction rate securities and auction rate bonds (collectively, "Auction Rate Securities").

The Complaint alleges that Oppenheimer 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. The Complaint alleges that Oppenheimer 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 Oppenheimer 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 Oppenheimer to "withdraw their support" for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on Auction Rate Securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that Oppenheimer failed to disclose the following material facts about the Auction Rate Securities it sold to investors: (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 Oppenheimer and other broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) Oppenheimer 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) Oppenheimer 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 February 20, 2009, an Order Consolidating Actions, Appointing Lead Plaintiff, and Approving Lead Plaintiffs' Selection Of Counsel was granted by the court. On April 10, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On July 10, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on September 10, 2009.

On September 27, 2010, the Defendants motion to dismiss was granted and Plaintiff/s complaint against Defendants is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. On September 30, 2010, the Clerk of Court closed this action and all pending motions were denied as moot.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code:
Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Oppenheimer Holdings Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	OPY
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.opco.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Bette M. Grossman, et al. v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-3528
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Loretta A. Preska
DATE FILED: 04/11/2008	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/09/2003	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/13/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com Weiss & Lurie (Los Angeles, CA) 10940 Wilshire Blvd - 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90024 (voice) 310.208.2800, (fax) 310.209.2348, info@wyca.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 4/11/2008
Order Consolidating Actions, Appointing David T. Vining As Lead Plaintiff, And Approving Lead Plaintiffs' Selection Of Counsel
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 02/20/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/04/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

David T. Vining, et al. v. Oppenheimer Holdings Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-4435
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Loretta A. Preska
DATE FILED: 07/10/2009	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/19/2003	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/13/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended and Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200, Kansas City, MI, 64112 (voice) 816.714.7100, (fax) 816.714.7101, info@stuevesiegel.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/10/2009
Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/10/2009
Opinion And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/29/2010
Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/30/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/30/2010

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: David T. Vining, et al. v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 5/12/2008

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

�