According to the last docket posted, on April 11 and July 21, 1997, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety. On December 24, 1997, the Court entered the Opinion and Order #79806 granting the motions to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff’s claims under the federal securities laws were dismissed with prejudice, and his claims under state common law were dismissed without prejudice. The Court did not grant the plaintiff leave to amend. The Court entered Judgment on December 30, 1997, and the case was closed. On January 28, 1998, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and April 26, 1999, the Court entered the Mandate of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the decision of the district court.

The complaint alleges that the defendant securities brokerage firms (and their
respective corporate parents) violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the 1934 Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b); Rules 10b-5 and 10b-10 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5 and 240.10b-10; Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a); and New York State common law of conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that he and the members of the putative class purchased U.S.Treasury securities through the defendants and were injured in one or more of the following ways: (a) they were assessed undisclosed charges, commissions, or markups on their purchases; (b) they received trade confirmation forms that incorrectly stated the yield or maturity for the securities, or incorrectly described the defendants' capacity in effectuating the trade; and (c) they were denied prompt access to their trade proceeds by the defendants, who improperly retained the proceeds after maturity and profited from them.