Case Page

 

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

Filing Date: February 25, 2009

According to a press release dated February 25, 2009, the complaint charges Oppenheimer, the Fund and certain of its Trustees with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The suit claims Oppenheimer, which runs the Fund, misled investors about the risks of investing in the Fund, resulting in an over 30% decline in the Fund's value. The lawsuit identifies the following funds as affected: A Shares (RMUNX), B Shares (RMUBX) and C Shares (RMUCX).

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements through which shares of the Fund were sold failed to disclose that under certain circumstances Trusts which contain Inverse Floaters, such as those employed by the Fund, may be put to the Fund for repayment of principal. This caused the Trusts to be collapsed and required the Fund to repay the principal amount of the tendered securities. In order to do so, the Fund was forced to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of market conditions and accept prices far below the values at which the bonds were carried on its books.

This risk factor was always present wherever inverse floaters were employed. However, no disclosure was made in any of the Prospectuses filed as part of Registration Statements with respect to the sale of the Fund's shares. Because of this lack of disclosure, the Fund's shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On October 21, 2008, Rochester filed a Prospectus Supplement which disclosed the relevant risks associated with the Fund's investment in Inverse Floaters. As of October 21, 2008, the Fund's shares traded at $12.35 per share, down from $18.00 per share at the beginning of the year.

On June 17, 2009, by Transfer Order from Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, this action and many others were transferred to the District of Colorado, MDL 2063, In Re: Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Group Securities Litigation.

On November 18, 2009, the Court approved the motion to appoint Stuart and Carole Krosser as Lead Plaintiff in the Rochester Fund Municipals class actions, and approved their selection of Cohen Milstein as Lead Counsel for the Rochester Fund Municipals class.

On January 15, 2010, an Amended 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, in relation to In re Rochester Fund Municipals. The complaint adds violation of Section 13(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, in addition to violations of Securities Act of 1933.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 5, 2010. According to the Order entered on October 24, 2011, by Judge John L. Kane, the Defendants' 285 Joint Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaints in the Rochester Funds Group Securities Litigation is granted with respect to Plaintiffs' claims under Section 13(a) of the Investment Company Act and denied in all other respects. Defendant MassMutual's 284 Motion to Dismiss is also denied.

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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RMUNX
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-00807
JUDGE: Hon. Raymond J. Dearie
DATE FILED: 02/25/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/26/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/21/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza), NY 10119
    212.279.5050 212.279.3655 · JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com
  2. 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/
  3. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Colorado
DOCKET #: 09-MD-02063
JUDGE: Hon. Raymond J. Dearie
DATE FILED: 01/15/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/26/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/21/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Washington DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Washington DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4600 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date