Company and Case Information

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.

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: 4/11/2008  SOURCE: Notice of Filing
 CLASS PERIOD START: 4/9/2003  CLASS PERIOD END: 2/13/2008
 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
    US District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 4/11/2008

     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