Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/13/2012 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: November 13, 2003

On May 19, 2010, the Hon. J. Frederick Motz granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the Mutual funds Investment litigation Alger subtrack.

On September 30, 2004 plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against Fred Alger Management. Defendants filed their answer on April 18, 2006. On July 7, 2006 the judged entered an order dismissing claims under Sections 10(b) and 36(b) against Independent Trustees.

More than 400 similar lawsuits against at least 19 different mutual fund companies have been filed in federal district courts throughout the country. Because these cases involve common questions of fact, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Judicial Panel”) ordered the creation of a multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, entitled “In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation” (the “MDL”). The Judicial Panel then transferred similar cases from different districts to the MDL for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. On April 6, 2004 the case was transferred under the MDL track.

According to a press release dated November 4, 2003, the lawsuit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Specifically, the complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed certain favored investors, such as Veras Investment Partners, to engage in the 'timing' of their transactions in the Funds' securities. Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit. Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in such practices. In return for receiving extra fees from Veras Investment Partners and other favored investors, Fred Alger Management, and the other Alger defendants, allowed and facilitated timing activities by Veras Investment Partners and others, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for such favored investors' improper profits. These practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds.

The Funds and the symbols for the respective Funds subject to the lawsuit are as follows:

Alger SmallCap Portfolio (Sym: ALSAX, ALSCX, AGSCX)
Alger SmallCap and MidCap Portfolio (Sym: ALMAX, ALMBX, ALMCX)
Alger MidCap Growth Portfolio (Sym: AMGAX, AMCGX, AMGCX)
Alger LargeCap Growth Portfolio (Sym: ALGAX, AFGPX, ALGCX)
Alger Capital Appreciation Portfolio (Sym: ACAAX, ACAPX, ALCCX)
Alger Health Sciences Portfolio (Sym: AHSAX, AHSBX, AHSCX)
Alger Balanced Portfolio (Sym: ALBAX, ALGBX, ALBCX)
Alger Small Cap Institutional Fund (Sym: ALSRX, ASIRX)
Alger MidCap Institutional Fund (Sym: ALMRX, ALGRX)
Alger LargeCap Growth Institutional Fund (Sym: ALGRX, ALGIX)
Alger Capital Appreciation Institutional Fund (Sym: ALARX, ACARX)
Alger Balanced Institutional Fund (Sym: ABLRX, ABIRX)
Alger Socially Responsible Growth Institutional Fund (Sym: ASRGX, ASRRX)
Spectra Fund (Sym: SPEAX, SPECX)

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol:
Company Market: ETF
Market Status: Privately Held

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 03-CV-8959
JUDGE: Hon. P. Kevin Castel
DATE FILED: 11/13/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/01/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/03/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
  2. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
  3. Curtis V. Trinko LLP
  4. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
  5. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  6. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
  7. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
  8. Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC
  9. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
  10. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Maryland
DOCKET #: 04-CV-00876
JUDGE: Hon. P. Kevin Castel
DATE FILED: 09/30/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/01/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/03/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  2. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date