Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/16/2012 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: November 07, 2003

According to the latest docket dated November 5, 2007, discovery has been proceeding in the multi-district mutual funds litigation. Simultaneously, some of the defendants have been involved in settlement discussions with the plaintiffs. This settlement process has been impacted by parallel regulatory proceedings occurring at the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Nevertheless, the court has been advised that several settlements have been agreed upon in principle. Additionally, numerous individuals and firms have been voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs throughout 2005 and 2006. On June 11, 2007, the over-seeing judges issued a scheduling order calling for completion of discovery by March 28, 2008.

Additionally, oral arguments concerning numerous pending motions for dismissal were held on October 5, 2007. Those motions were ordered denied on October 19, 2007.

Numerous motions to dismiss various complaints were filed on February 25 and March 7, 2005.

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. Plaintiffs in the MDL filed consolidated amended complaints on September 29, 2004. On February 25, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss. The Company’s and its subsidiaries’ motions are currently under submission with the court.

According to a press release dated November 21, 2003, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by allowing certain investors to market time and/or late trade mutual fund shares. Specifically, the complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and for common law breach of fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees, sticky money investments and other income for themselves and their affiliates.

The complaint further alleges that, during the class period, Bear Stearns and the other defendants engaged in illegal and improper trading practices, in concert with certain traders, which caused financial injury to the shareholders of the above-referenced Janus and Putnam funds. According to the complaint, the defendants permitted certain favored investors, including Defendant Canary Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC (collectively, 'Canary') to engage in 'timing' and late trading of the Janus and Putnam funds. Timing is an arbitrage strategy whereby the favored investors are permitted to conduct short-term trading of mutual fund shares, despite explicit restrictions on such activity in the funds' prospectuses and at the expense of long-term holders.

The funds and the respective symbols are listed below:


Janus Fund (Nasdaq:JANSX)
Janus Enterprise Fund (Nasdaq:JAENX)
Janus Twenty Fund (Nasdaq:JAVLX)
Janus Investment Fund (Nasdaq: JABAX)
Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq: POEGX)

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BSC
Company Market: ETF
Market Status: Public (Listed)

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: D. Maryland
DOCKET #: 03-CV-08864
JUDGE: Hon. P. Kevin Castel
DATE FILED: 11/07/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/01/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/03/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix)
    4041 N. Cental Avenue, Suite 1100, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix), AZ 85012-3311
    602.274.1100 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Maryland
DOCKET #: 04-CV-15861
JUDGE: Hon. P. Kevin Castel
DATE FILED: 04/09/2004
CLASS PERIOD START:
CLASS PERIOD END:
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brower Piven (Baltimore)
    The World Trade Center-Baltimore. 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Brower Piven (Baltimore), MD
    410.332.0030 410.685.1300 · info@browerpiven.com
  2. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  3. 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
  4. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
  5. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
  6. Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones, NY 10022-6689
    212-759-4600 ·
No Document Title Filing Date