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.

Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on February 12, 2016. On March 14, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel.

On March 29, 2018, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. On August 13, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on September 25.