On or around 04/11/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)
Filing Date: August 31, 2004
The first Consolidated complaint, filed on January 10, 2005 was immediately dismissed without prejudice by the judge on January 11, 2005. He later granted leave to amend the complaint on February 23; plaintiffs did so on March 4, 2005. This time official motions to dismiss were filed by defendants on March 30, 2005. After an initial order denying the motion, further motions for reconsideration were successful in swaying the judge's opinion. On April 11, 2006 a Clerk's Judgment was entered dismissing the remaining Section 36(b) claim against the defendant and dismissing the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs later filed a notice of appeal which was later withdrawn without prejudice.
This is a federal class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares or other ownership units of one or more of the mutual funds in the Oppenheimer family of funds during the class period. Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under the Investment Company Act of 1940; the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; and for breaches of defendants' common law fiduciary duties.
This complaint alleges that defendants engaged in an unlawful and deceitful course of conduct designed to improperly financially advantage defendants to the detriment of plaintiff and other members of the Class. In clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, defendants failed to properly disclose that defendants had been using the assets of the Oppenheimer Funds to pay brokers to aggressively push Oppenheimer Funds over other funds, and that such payments from investors by disguising them as brokerage commissions. Such brokerage commissions, though payable from fund assets, are not disclosed to investors in the Oppenheimer Funds public filings or elsewhere
The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer Funds investors were thus induced to purchase Oppenheimer Funds by brokers who received undisclosed payments from Oppenheimer to push Oppenheimer Funds over other mutual funds and who therefore had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Then, once invested in one or more of the Oppenheimer Funds, Oppenheimer Funds investors were charged and paid undisclosed fees that were improperly used to pay brokers to aggressively push Oppenheimer Funds to yet other brokerage clients.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Oppenheimer Funds, Inc.
Industry: Other (Mutual Fund)
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
Stephen R. Alexander, et al. v. Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., et al.
Class Action Complaint for Excessive Fees in Violation of Sections 34(b), 36(b), and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act and Sections 206 and 215 of the Investment Advisers Act, and for Breaches of Fiduciary Duty - Jury Trial Demanded
Pretrial Order No. 2 For Appointment of Plaintiffs' Tri-Lead Counsel