Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/25/2017 (Other)

Filing Date: August 13, 2012

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding UBS PR CEFs. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants promoted UBS PR CEFs' extraordinary market returns, low risk and low volatility, while simultaneously not disclosing that CEFs' prices and liquidity were manipulated by UBS PR's support of the market. The complaint also alleges that Defendants misrepresented and/or did not disclose in the CEFs' offering documents and related communications that: (a) CEF prices were set solely at the discretion of Defendants and not based on market forces such as supply and demand; (b) as the dominant CEF broker-dealer, UBS PR controlled the secondary market for CEFs, and that any secondary market sales investors wanted to make depended largely on UBS PR's ability to solicit additional customers or its own willingness to purchase shares into its inventory; (c) UBS PR was purchasing millions of dollars of CEF shares into its own inventory while promoting the appearance of a liquid market, and thereby artificially propping up prices and creating the appearance of liquidity; and (d) UBS PR's corporate parent was pressuring UBS PR to reduce its inventory of CEF shares as its inventory rose well beyond internal limits. According to the complaint, in selling 75% of its inventory and ceasing to use its inventory to support the CEF secondary market, UBS PR caused prices to decline, thereby harming class members.

On October 16, 2012, an Order on the Motion for Consolidation, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Its Selection of Lead and Liaison Counsel was granted.

On November 5, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint against the defendants.

On January 17,2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint against the defendants.

 On April 3, 2013, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i),a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Codefendants Puerto Rico Investors Tax Free Fund IV and Puerto Rico Investors Bond Fund I dismissing without prejudice and without the imposition of any costs and attorneys’ fees, their claims against co-defendants The Puerto Rico Investors Tax Free Fund IV, Inc. and the Puerto Rico Investors Bond Fund I.

On August 27, 2013, the Motion to Restrict Viewing of Exhibits at Docket No. 67, filed by the defendants was granted. Plaintiffs’ Request for Oral Argument on the Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint ( docket entry 77 ) was DENIED.

On August 28, 2013, the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal to delete a name of a person who was not a named plaintiff in the case was granted. It was Ordered that partial judgment be entered dismissing all claims against the defendant included in the Consolidated Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs on January 17, 2013. The motions to dismiss filed by the codefendants on December 5, 2012, and on February 28, 2013, are moot.

On September 30, 2013, after the Court considered the allegations of the second Consolidated Amended Complaint the dismissal motion was denied.

On August 21, 2017, the Court issued an Order dismissing certain Defendants without prejudice. The case is stayed pending resolution of arbitration as to remaining Defendants.

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: D. Puerto Rico
DOCKET #: 12-CV-01663
JUDGE: Hon. Francisco A. Besosa
DATE FILED: 08/13/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/01/2008
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/01/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Espada, Minana & Pedrosa Law Offices, PSC
    122 Calle Manuel Dómenech Altos Urb. Baldrich, Espada, Minana & Pedrosa Law Offices, PSC, PR 00918
    787.758.1999 787.758.1999 ·
  2. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Puerto Rico
DOCKET #: 12-CV-01663
JUDGE: Hon. Francisco A. Besosa
DATE FILED: 11/05/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/01/2008
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/01/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Scott + Scott LLP (NY)
    405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor, The Chrysler Building, Scott + Scott LLP (NY), NY 10174
    (212) 223-6444 (212) 223-6444 ·
No Document Title Filing Date