Case Page

 

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

Filing Date: November 12, 2004

On June 30, 2010 the LONG-FORM NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES, AND SETTLEMENT HEARING.

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.

According to the docket, on April 4, 2005, the Court entered an Order administratively closing the action pending other proceedings. Further, on April 6, 2005, in an Order by The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the case was transferred to the District of Maryland (C05-874 MDL 1586).

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed against RS Family of Mutual Funds and certain of its present and former executive officers in the United States federal courts of California and Maryland. The California and Maryland filings were brought on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of shares of the RS family of mutual funds within the class period indicated below. Both actions also have similar allegations.

The California lawsuit was brought against defendant for violation of section 36 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and common law breach of fiduciary duty. According to the complaint this action concerns a fraudulent scheme and course of action, which was intended to benefit mutual funds and their advisors at the expense of mutual funds investors. In connection therein, the complaints states that defendants violated their fiduciary duties to their customers in return for substantial fees and other income for themselves and their families. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the wrongful conduct involves Timing of mutual funds while the prospectus for the funds at issue created the misleading impression that mutual funds were vigilantly protecting investor against the negative effects of timing.

The Maryland action charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the defendants engaged in illegal and improper trading practices, in concert with certain institutional traders, which caused financial injury to the shareholders of the RS Funds. According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously permitted certain favored investors, including the John Doe Defendants, to illegally engage in Timing of the RS Funds whereby these favored
investors were permitted to conduct short-term, in-and-out trading of mutual fund shares, despite explicit restrictions on such activity in the RS Funds' prospectuses.

The Funds and the symbols for the respective Funds are named as follows:

RS Diversified Growth Fund (Nasdaq: RSDGX)
RS Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq: RSEGX)
RS Growth Fund (Nasdaq: RSVPX)
RS Information Age Fund (Nasdaq: RSIFX)
RS Internet Age Fund (Nasdaq: RIAFX)
RS Midcap Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: RSMOX)
RS Smaller Company Growth Fund (Nasdaq: RSSGX)
RS Contrarian Value Fund (Nasdaq: RSCOX)
RS Global Natural Resources Fund (Nasdaq: RSNRX)
RS Partner Fund (Nasdaq: RSPFX)

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RSDGX
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 #: 04-CV-4826
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn H. Patel
DATE FILED: 11/12/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/06/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/05/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Green Welling LLP (San Francisco)
    235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, Green Welling LLP (San Francisco), CA 94104
    415.477.6700 415.477.6710 · gw@classcounsel.com
  2. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  3. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
    10940 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 2300, Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), CA 90024
    310.209.2468 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Maryland
DOCKET #: 04-CV-03798
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn H. Patel
DATE FILED: 05/16/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/06/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/05/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date