Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/17/2011 (Date of stipulation and/or agreement of settlement)

Filing Date: June 05, 2008

According to a press release dated June 5, 2008, a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of the Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond Fund who purchased the Fund within three years of the filing of this lawsuit, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, the complaint charges Fidelity Management & Research Company ("FMR Co.") and certain related entities, among others, with violations of the Securities Act. FMR Co. is the investment advisor to the entire group of mutual funds under the Fidelity name.

The complaint alleges that on or about August 23, 2002, defendants began offering shares of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund pursuant to an initial registration statement, filed with the SEC as a Form 485BPOS (the "Registration Statement"). The complaint alleges that defendants solicited investors to purchase shares of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund by making statements that described the Fund as a fund that: (i) "Seeks a high level of current income consistent with the preservation of capital"; (ii) "allocates its assets across different market sectors and maturities"; (iii) has a "similar overall interest rate risk to the Lehman Brothers® 6 Month Swap Index"; and (iv) is geared toward the "preservation of capital." As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because defendants did not adequately disclose the risks associated with investing in the Fund, including, for example, that the Fund was: (i) failing to compete with the Lehman Brothers® 6 Month Swap Index; and (ii) so heavily invested in high-risk mortgage-backed securities.

By June 11, 2007, defendants slowly began lowering the value of the share price for the Ultra-Short Bond Fund. Since then, the value of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund's share price has been precipitously lowered. By November 15, 2007, the value of the per-share price was reduced below $9. The shares were trading as low as $8.25 as of the filing of the complaint.

On February 23, 2009, the judge ordered related cases consolidated and appointed an individual investor to serve as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff's selection of co-lead counsel was also approved. On April 23, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on July 17, 2009.

On April 8, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on May 24, 2010. By the Order signed by Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf on November 16, 2010, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 68) is allowed in part and denied in part. According to the Order, it is allowed to the extent that it seeks the dismissal of Count I against defendant Fidelity Investments. It is denied in all other respects. By December 3, 2010, the parties shall confer and report, jointly if possible but separately if necessary, whether they have reached an agreement to resolve this matter.

On June 17, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement. According to the Stipulation of Settlement, the proposed settlement is in the amount of $7.5 million in cash. The settlement was preliminarily approved on December 23, 2011. The final settlement hearing is set for May 11, 2012.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Consumer Financial Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FUSFX
Company Market: NASDAQ
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. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 08-CV-10960
JUDGE: Hon. Mark L. Wolf
DATE FILED: 06/05/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/05/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/05/2008
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. Dyer & Berens LLP (former)
    682 Grant Street, Dyer & Berens LLP (former), CO 80203-3507
    303.861.1764 303.861.1764 · contact@dyerberens.com
  3. Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (former Atlanta)
    1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107, Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (former Atlanta), GA 30338
    770.392.0090 770.392.0090 ·
  4. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    53 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 08-CV-10960
JUDGE: Hon. Mark L. Wolf
DATE FILED: 04/08/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/06/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/05/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Dyer & Berens LLP (former)
    682 Grant Street, Dyer & Berens LLP (former), CO 80203-3507
    303.861.1764 303.861.1764 · contact@dyerberens.com
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date