Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/04/2015 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 10, 2009

According to the complaint, this action arises from defendants' sale of mortgage pass-through certificates (the "Certificates") based upon false and misleading offering documents. Mortgage pass-through certificates are securities entitling the holder to income payments from pools of loans and mortgage-backed securities aggregated and bundled for the purpose of selling certificates to institutional investors such as Plaintiff Similar to other asset-backed securities, the value of pass-through certificates is dependent on the ability of the underlying borrowers to repay their loans (principal and interest) and the adequacy of collateral in the event that borrowers cannot do so.

Specifically, the JP Morgan Entities did not disclose in the documents, inter alia, that the loan originators that had originated the mortgages to borrowers had ignored and/or never intended to follow the stated underwriting and appraisal standards and guidelines, and that JP Morgan Acquisition ignored its loan purchasing guidelines. The underlying mortgages were also loans on properties for which the collateral appraisals materially overstated the value of the underlying properties. Thus, the Certificates that were sold to investors as investment-grade instruments were later revealed to be below investment-grade instruments. As underlying mortgage borrowers become delinquent, default and suffer foreclosures, the purportedly investment-grade Certificates have been downgraded, cash flows have suffered and the Certificates have lost value. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' false and materially misleading statements and material omissions alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered damages when the truth about the risk profile and value of the Certificates became known, causing the price to drop.

On April 8, 2010, Judge John G. Koeltl granted the motion to appoint the Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands as Lead Plaintiff. The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP was appointed Lead Counsel. On April 9, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On May 6, 2010, a notice of voluntary dismissal was filed, dismissing the action with prejudice against the various Trusts. The next day, Judge Koeltl signed the order dismissing the action against the 11 various Trusts.

On May 24, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Before any ruling, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 8, 2010. On August 9, 2010, the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. By the Order entered on March 30, 2011 and the Amended Order entered on May 10th, Judge John G. Koeltl granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.

The parties are currently in the discovery phase of the proceedings.

On July 12, 2012, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving the selection of lead counsel.

On January 4, 2013, the Court issued an Order revising its earlier May 9, 2011 Order.

On September 30, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On July 17, 2015, the parties filed a Settlement Agreement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on August 4. The Settlement was granted Final Approval on December 4, and judgment was entered in this case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
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 #: 09-CV-03701
JUDGE: Hon. Sidney H. Stein
DATE FILED: 04/10/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/27/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/10/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. David R. Scott (Scott + Scott)
    108 Norwich Avenue; P.O. Box 192, David R. Scott (Scott + Scott), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.5537 ·
  2. Scott & Scott LLP (New York-former)
    29th West 57th Street, 14th Floor, Scott & Scott LLP (New York-former), NY 10019
    212.223.6444 212.223.6334 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 09-CV-03701
JUDGE: Hon. Sidney H. Stein
DATE FILED: 07/08/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/27/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/10/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  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