Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/08/2009 (Stipulation and order of dismissal (voluntary dismissal))

Filing Date: May 01, 2008

According to a press release dated May 1, 2008, a class action has been commenced on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of MAT Five LLC (“MAT Five”) pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading Private Placement Memorandum (“PPM”) on or about December 18, 2006 and/or its Supplements and who were damaged thereby.

The complaint charges MAT Five, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citigroup Global”) (the corporate and capital markets arm of Citigroup, Inc.’s (“Citigroup”) (NYSE:C) Corporate and Investment Banking group), Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC (“CAI”), Citigroup Fixed Income Alternatives (“CFIA”) and Reaz Islam with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Delaware law. MAT Five is a limited liability company that makes investments in limited liability company interests issued by Municipal Opportunity Fund Five National (“MOF Five”), a limited liability company that makes leveraged investments in fixed-rate, tax-exempt municipal bonds.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during late 2006 and continuing into early 2007, Citigroup, through CFIA and CAI, targeted many of its clients who were believed to be interested in fixed-income investments which would provide higher yields. One type of investment Citigroup promoted to its investors was municipal bond opportunities involving the arbitrage of tax-exempt and taxable bonds. These were actually very risky investments which could drop precipitously if the markets changed, or if the investments were not properly managed. Defendants caused the PPM and presentation materials for MAT Five (the “Selling Documents”) to be disseminated beginning in 2006 in connection with the issuance of hundreds of millions of dollars of shares. The Selling Documents were false and misleading in that the strategy to be employed would not protect investors as suggested by the ratings of the underlying investments and defendants did not have risk management practices in place to prevent employees of CAI from engaging in highly risky investment practices. On March 20, 2008, CAI wrote a letter to investors which stated that the recent credit crunch had rapidly accelerated and spread into the municipal bond markets. As a result, the cash positions and net asset values of the MAT Five fund had been severely impacted, and they were going to indefinitely suspend the fund’s income distributions in an effort to preserve liquidity.

On July 9, 2008 the judge ordered related cases to be consolidated, appointed the Michael Joel Stone Revocable Trust and Alobeco, Inc as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead counsel. Plaintiffs then filed a Consolidated Complaint on October 2, 2008. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on December 4, 2008. On May 8, 2009, the motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice to renewal pending a Delaware litigation.

On July 8, 2009, a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal was signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. According to the Stipulation, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by and between Plaintiffs, The Michael Joel Stone Revocable Trust and Albeco Inc., and all Defendants who have appeared In this action, that: This action is dismissed, In its entirety, without prejudice, with the parties to bear their own respective costs and attorneys' fees in this action and the litigation before the Supreme Court of Delaware.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Money Center Banks
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol:
Company Market: Privately Traded
Market Status: Privately Held

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-04152
JUDGE: Hon. P. Kevin Castel
DATE FILED: 05/01/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/18/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/01/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 · info@csgrr.com/
  3. Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC
    The Waterfrong Building; 2000 First Avenue, Suite 300, Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC, PA 15222
    412.261.2393 412.261.2393 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 08-CV-04152
JUDGE: Hon. P. Kevin Castel
DATE FILED: 10/02/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/18/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/01/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Hulett Harper Stewart LLP
    525 B Street, Suite 760, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, CA 92101
    619..338.1133 619..338.1139 · office@hulettharper.com
No Document Title Filing Date