Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 08/19/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: December 21, 2015

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose: (1) that subsequent UDF companies provide significant liquidity to earlier vintage UDF companies, allowing them to pay earlier investors; (2) that if the funding mechanism funneling retail capital to the latest UDF company were halted, the earlier UDF companies would not be capable of standing alone, and the entire structure would likely crumble with investors left holding the bag; (3) that UDF IV provided liquidity to UDF I, UMT and UDF III, among other affiliates, further exacerbating the problem and perpetuating the scheme; (4) that, as such, Defendants were operating a Ponzi-like real estate investing scheme; (5) that the Company was being investigated by the SEC; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about UDF IV’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 14, 2016, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: UDF
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

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: N.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 15-CV-04030
JUDGE: Hon. Sam R Cummings
DATE FILED: 12/21/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/04/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/10/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
  2. Kendall Law Group, LLP
    3232 McKinney, Ste 700, Kendall Law Group, LLP, TX 75204
    214.744.3000 214.744.3000 ·
  3. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
No Document Title Filing Date