City of Miami Summary: According to the complaint dated May 07, 2010, the Defendant defrauded Plaintiff and the other members of the Class by making fraudulent material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the City of Miami’s then-current financial condition and future prospects to Plaintiff, other municipal bond purchasers, and the investing public.
Throughout the Class Period the City of Miami represented itself to investors as financially stable and maintaining an internal structure with adequate controls and procedures to ensure proper budgetary accounting and the City of Miami’s overall financial stability. The City of Miami represented to municipal bond investors that the accounting entities responsible for the City of Miami’s finances followed Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) as defined by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”). The City of Miami attached audited financial statements to its issuing documents, and maintained that such documents were independently audited by an independent certified public accountant and complied with GAAP. Indeed, the City of Miami touted its internal controls in the municipal bond issuing documents, noting that the City of Miami received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada. At all relevant times, however, the City of Miami was improperly and illegally shuffling money between various City of Miami accounts in an effort to cover up its existing fiscal crisis.
On July 26, 2010, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 6, 2010, Judge Jose E. Martinez denied two pending motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel, finding the motions premature as the class action has not yet been certified in the case.
On January 31, 2011, Judge Jose E. Martinez granted in part and denied in part the Defendant City of Miami's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by February 2, 2011. On February 11, 2011, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on February 18, 2011.
On September 1, 2011, Judge Jose E. Martinez denied the Defendant City of Miami's Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively Motion to Strike Plaintiff, Helene Hutt's Class Action Amended Complaint.
On January 17, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court issued a Final Order of dismissal the next day.
SIC Code: 0000
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