According to a press release dated July 13, 2009, the Complaint alleges that JP Morgan violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to its role as a manager of auctions for auction rate securities. Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set at periodic “auctions.” Auction rate securities generally have long-term maturities or no maturity dates.
The Complaint alleges that JP Morgan manipulated the market in which auction rate securities are traded to create the appearance that the securities traded at arm’s-length auctions, when in fact the available supply well exceeded the demand for those securities. The Complaint alleges that JP Morgan placed or caused the placement of support bids for auctions in which it served as a dealer to create the appearance of stability and liquidity in the auction market, prevent auction failures, and set the rates of interest or dividends paid on those securities. The Complaint alleges that JP Morgan engaged in this conduct to further perpetuate the sale of auction rate securities, and to manage its inventory of auction rate securities for its own benefit and to the detriment of investors. The Complaint alleges that JP Morgan failed to disclose its conduct to investors in violation of the federal securities laws.
According to the Complaint, holders of auction rate securities underwritten and managed by JP Morgan have been unable to liquidate their positions in these securities following the decision on February 13, 2008 of all major broker-dealers including JP Morgan to “withdraw their support” for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction rate securities are set.
On November 16, 2009, an order was entered into the docket by the court appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel for this action.
On January 29, 2010, an amended complaint for violations of federal securities laws was filed the plaintiffs against defendants.
On March 15, 2010, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint is dismissed without prejudice to renew after determination of the motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer this case to another district.
On March 12, 2010, the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint [doc. no. 22] was dismissed without prejudice to renew after a determination of the motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer this case to another jurisdiction.
On June 09, 2010, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions pending outside the Southern District of New York were transferred to the Southern District of New York.
On March 31, 2012, the Court issued an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss.