Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 01/15/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: February 06, 2009

According to a press release dated February 6, 2009, the lawsuit alleges that the Fund's Registration Statements and Prospectuses misled investors about the Fund's investment objectives and underlying risk by describing the Fund as seeking current income "consistent with preservation of capital." The Fund lost over 41% of its net asset value ("NAV") in 2008. By comparison, the average loss for funds within the same Lipper peer group over this period was only 11.5%.

"The promise that a municipal bond fund follows a strategy designed to preserve capital cannot be just a sales pitch. It has to be reflected in an objective investment approach," said Alan W. Sparer, lead counsel. "Investors put their 'safe' money and retirement savings in muni bonds. These funds are not the place for speculative strategies or junk bond investments."

The lawsuit alleges that the Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund policies and operations ignored the preservation of capital objective by concentrating 78% of its assets in bonds rated at the lowest investment grade or below, and concentrating 60% in bonds that were not rated by any independent rating agency. In addition, 33% of the Fund's investments were placed in Dirt Bonds, which are based on contracts for land developments that have not been built yet and were especially vulnerable to the recent declines in California's real estate market.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Oppenheimer failed to disclose that, because of the Fund's overconcentration in lower rated bonds and bonds that had not been rated by any independent agency, there was a significant risk that more than 25% of its assets were in junk bonds, a violation of the Fund's fundamental investment policy.

The NAV of the Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund decreased by more than $1.1 billion in 2008.

On June 17, 2009, by order of the court, this case was transferred to the District of Colorado (MDL NO. 2063).

On November 18, 2009, the Court entered the MDL order, approving Joseph Stockwell as Lead Plaintiff in the California Municipal Fund class actions, and approved his selection of The Sparer Law Group as Lead Counsel.

On January 15, 2010, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed in Master Docket No. 09-md-02063-JLK-KMT (MDL Docket No. 2063), In Re: Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Group Securities Litigation, related to In re California Municipal Fund. The complaint adds violation of Section 13(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, in addition to violations of Securities Act of 1933.

On April 5, 2010, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

On January 18, 2012, the MDL Court issued an order on pending motions for reconsideration. The Court granted the motion of certain defendants and denied the motion of a certain defendant. Two days later, the Court issued an Amended Opinion and Order on Motions to Dismiss which reflected the Court's holdings from the January 18 Order.

On March 20, 2013, the Court issued an Order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Other (Mutual Fund)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: OPCAX
Company Market: Open-end Fund
Market Status: Open-end Fund

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. Colorado
DOCKET #: 09-CV-00567
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 02/06/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/27/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/28/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Sparer Law Group
    100 Pine Street, 33rd Floor, Sparer Law Group, CA 94111
    415.217.7300 415.217.7307 · info@sparerlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Colorado
DOCKET #: 09-MD-02063
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 01/15/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/27/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/28/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Sparer Law Group
    100 Pine Street, 33rd Floor, Sparer Law Group, CA 94111
    415.217.7300 415.217.7307 · info@sparerlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date