Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 01/26/2011 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: April 11, 2008

According to a press release dated April 11, 2008, the class action is brought against Oppenheimer Holdings Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc, Oppenheimer Asset Management and Freedom Investments Inc. (collectively, "Oppenheimer"), in connection with the sale of auction rate securities, auction rate preferred stock, auction market preferred stock, variable rate preferred securities, money market preferred securities, periodic auction rate securities and auction rate bonds (collectively, "Auction Rate Securities").

The Complaint alleges that Oppenheimer violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of Auction Rate Securities and the auction market in which these securities traded. The Complaint alleges that Oppenheimer offered and sold Auction Rate Securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds. According to the Complaint, holders of Auction Rate Securities sold by Oppenheimer and other broker-dealers have been unable to liquidate their positions in these securities following the decision on February 13, 2008 of all major broker-dealers including Oppenheimer to "withdraw their support" for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on Auction Rate Securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that Oppenheimer failed to disclose the following material facts about the Auction Rate Securities it sold to investors: (1) the Auction Rate Securities were not cash alternatives, like money market funds, but were, instead, complex long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity dates, or longer; (2) the Auction Rate Securities were only liquid at the time of sale because Oppenheimer and other broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) Oppenheimer and other broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and (4) Oppenheimer continued to market Auction Rate Securities as liquid investments after it had determined that it and other broker-dealers were likely to withdraw their support for the periodic auctions and that a "freeze" of the market for Auction Rate Securities would result.

On February 20, 2009, an Order Consolidating Actions, Appointing Lead Plaintiff, and Approving Lead Plaintiffs' Selection Of Counsel was granted by the court. On April 10, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On July 10, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on September 10, 2009.

On September 27, 2010, the Defendants motion to dismiss was granted and Plaintiff/s complaint against Defendants is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. On September 30, 2010, the Clerk of Court closed this action and all pending motions were denied as moot.

On October 20, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed the Court's decision to grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss. According to a Mandate issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on January 26, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation withdrawing the above appeal.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: OPY
Company Market: New York SE
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 08-CV-3528
JUDGE: Hon. Loretta A. Preska
DATE FILED: 04/11/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/09/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/13/2008
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
  2. Weiss & Lurie (Los Angeles, CA)
    10940 Wilshire Blvd - 24th Floor, Weiss & Lurie (Los Angeles, CA), CA 90024
    310.208.2800 310.209.2348 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 08-CV-4435
JUDGE: Hon. Loretta A. Preska
DATE FILED: 07/10/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/19/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/13/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
    460 Nichols Road, Suite 200, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, MI 64112
    816.714.7100 816.714.7101 · info@stuevesiegel.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date