Raymond James Financial 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

Raymond James Financial Inc. : Auction Rate Securities Summary: According to a press release dated April 8, 2008, the Complaint alleges that Raymond James 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, Raymond James 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 Raymond James 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 to “withdraw their support” for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction rates securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that Raymond James 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 broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and (4) Raymond James continued to market auction rate securities as liquid investments after it had determined that 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.

The judge appointed lead plaintiff and approved her selection of Girard Gibbs LLP to serve as lead counsel on July 2, 2008. Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Complaint on December 1, 2008.

On September 17, 2009, an order on defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint was granted. The order was based on the plaintiffs’ inability state a legally sufficient claim against some or all of the defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff was granted leave to amend on or before October 16, 2009.

On October 16, 2009, a second amended complaint was filed with the court in this action.

On September 2, 2010, defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was granted in all respects except that motion is denied with respect to plaintiff's (1) Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against the defendants for the period November 2007 through February 13, 2008, and (2) the Section 20(a) claim against the defendants.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6211
Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Raymond James Financial Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	RJF
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.raymondjames.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Defer LP, et al. v. Raymond James Financial Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-03449
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan.
DATE FILED: 04/08/2008	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/08/2003	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/13/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Girard Gibbs LLP (San Francisco) 601 California Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA, 94108 (voice) 415.981.4800, (fax) 415.981.4846, mail@girardgibbs.com Seeger Weiss LLP (New York) One William Street, New York, NY, 10004 (voice) 212.584.0700, (fax) , info@seegerweiss.com 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: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 4/8/2008
Order
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 7/2/2008
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 10/30/2008

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Defer LP v. Raymond James Financial, Inc., et al

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-03449
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 12/01/2008	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/08/2003	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/13/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Girard Gibbs LLP (San Francisco) 601 California Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA, 94108 (voice) 415.981.4800, (fax) 415.981.4846, mail@girardgibbs.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
First Amended Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 12/01/2008
Memorandum Opinion
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 09/17/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/24/2009
Second Amended Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 10/16/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 01/06/2010
Memorandum Opinion
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 09/02/2010
Stipulated Order To Stay Action And To Vacate Schedule
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/16/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Other		Date on the document: 07/13/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

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

�