According to a law firm press release, a class action was filed on June 30, 2008 on behalf of purchasers of the SSgA Yield Plus Fund (NASDAQ: SSYPX) (the "Yield Plus Fund" or the "Fund") who purchased shares of the Fund within the three years that preceded the filing of this lawsuit.
The complaint charges State Street Corporation ("State Street"), and certain related entities, among others, with violations of the Securities Act. State Street Global Advisors ("SSgA") is the investment advisor to the entire group of mutual funds under the State Street name.
On or about November 9, 1992, defendants began offering shares of the Yield Plus 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 Yield Plus Fund by making statements in the Registration Statement and subsequent supplemental prospectuses that described the "investment objective" of the SSgA Yield Plus Fund as investments "primarily in a diversified portfolio" with "high-quality debt securities" that include "high credit quality," "sophisticated credit analysis" and "team based decision making by experienced investment professionals." 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 so heavily invested in high-risk mortgage-related or mortgage-backed securities.
By June 11, 2007, defendants slowly began lowering the value of the share price for the Yield Plus Fund. Since then, the value of the Yield Plus Fund's share price has been precipitously lowered. By December 12, 2007, the value of the per-share price was reduced to $8.01. The shares were trading as low as $6.60 at the time of the filing of the complaint.
According to the copy of the conditional transfer order filed on September 29, 2008, on June 16, 2008, the Panel transferred two civil actions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceeding, MDL Case No. 1945.
On February 13, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On March 11, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On February 22, 2010, District Judge Richard J. Holwell signed the Memorandum Opinion and Order. According to the Order, the defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint are granted. Because plaintiffs have not requested leave to replead, and because they amended the Complaint once already after receiving notice of the grounds for these motions to dismiss, the claims are dismissed with prejudice.