Summit Retirement Advisors is a wealth management/financial planning organization.

According to a press release dated November 25, 2009, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants violated federal securities laws and the Idaho Uniform Securities Act by: (1) offering and selling Provident Securities in violation of state and federal registration requirements; and (2) providing materially untrue and misleading offering materials regarding Provident Securities. The Complaint also alleges that Defendants and their affiliates violated the Idaho Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices in the offer and sale of the Provident Securities.

According to the lawsuit, the private placement memoranda and related offering materials pursuant to which the Provident Securities were offered and sold were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and omitted material facts pertaining to the terms of the offering and the use of funds, including that certain investments were kept afloat via improper intra-fund transfers, that investor funds raised in later offerings were used to pay "dividends" and "returns of capital" to earlier Provident investors, and other material facts pertaining to the terms of the securities and the risks of investment in the Provident Securities. The lawsuit also alleges that the Provident Securities should have been registered under federal securities laws and Idaho state law, but were not.

On July 09, 2010, the Kreindel Trust was appointed lead Plaintiff and their selection of Zwerling Schachter and Girard Gibbs as co-lead Counsel was approved.

On September 13, 2010, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this action was transferred out of the District of Idaho to the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Docket Number: 10-CV-01833.

On October 6, 2010, a Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), was filed by the lead Plaintiff, on behalf of all Plaintiffs, voluntarily dismissing all claims against certain Defendants without prejudice.

On October 07, 2010, the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay was Granted after the parties have agreed that an order staying the litigation pending the outcome of a related action was appropriate and warranted.

On March 21, 2011, an Order Denying Representative Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Class Action Settlement along with an Order Denying as Moot Intervenors' Motions to Stay was issued by the Court. The Order rendering the Intervenors’ motion as moot was due to the denial of the Motion for Preliminary Approval, while the Preliminary Approval of Partial Class Action Settlement was denied because the terms of the proposed settlement would involve the enjoining of a number of FINRA arbitrations brought by individual investors against the Defendants.

On August 9, 2011, the Court entered an order of Final Settlement Approval and Judgment. Further, the court closed the case docket.