Duncan-Williams, Inc. : Capstone Series 2000 Municipal Bonds Securities Litigation
On or around 08/12/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)
Filing Date: June 14, 2004
On August 12, 2005, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Jon Phipps McCalla denying the plaintiff's motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and To Reconsider Denial of Leave To Amend. Further, the Court entered Judgment finding in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff. The case was dismissed.
On July 8, 2002, defendant Duncan Williams, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss. On November 4, 2004, the Court entered the Order signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The next day, the Court also denied the plaintiff’s motion to file an Amended Complaint. On November 16, 2004, the plaintiff filed a motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and to Reconsider Denial of Leave to Amend.
The lawsuit alleges that Duncan Williams misrepresented and failed to disclose material facts in connection with the sale of Capstone bonds to plaintiffs and other purchasers. The lawsuit further alleges that Duncan Williams failed to discharge properly its duties as underwriter of the bond issue in question. The suit alleges that Duncan Williams' conduct violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, the Tennessee Securities Act, and the common law of Tennessee.
Note: The class consists of individuals and entities that purchased Capstone bonds from Duncan Williams.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Duncan-Williams, Inc.
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States
Company Market: Undetermined
Market Status: Unknown
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.
First Identified Complaint
Willodean P. Precise, et al. v. Duncan-Williams, Inc., et al.
COURT: W.D. Tennessee
DOCKET #: 04-CV-02448
JUDGE: Hon. Jon Phipps McCalla
DATE FILED: 06/14/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/01/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/30/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Falls & Veach, P.L.C.
First Identified Complaint (FIC) Filings:
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment And To Reconsider Denial Of Leave To Amend
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
Related District Court Filings
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available