Oppenheimer

8/31/11 is Deadline for Opting Out of $100M Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Class Action Settlement

Published on: August 17, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Our securities fraud lawyers would like to remind you that if you want to opt out of the $100M class action settlement with Oppenheimer Mutual Funds you have to do so by August 31, 2011. OppenheimerFunds Inc. agreed to pay that amount over accusations that it mismanaged its Oppenheimer Champion Fund (OCHBX, OPCHX and OCHCX) and its Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund (OPIGX). The class action was filed by investors accusing OppenheimerFunds of misrepresenting in its offering documents the degree of risk involved in complex securitized instruments, including mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps.

Under the class action agreement, Champion Fund investors are to be paid $52.5 million. Core Bond investors are to receive $47.5 million. While this amount may seem like a lot, with thousands of class action claimants, Core Bund Fund investors will likely receive approximately 12 cents on the dollar, while Champion Fund investors will receive about 3 cents on the dollar.

This is not a lot of money for your losses, which is why you may want to seriously consider opting out of the class action and pursuing your own securities lawsuit or arbitration claim. Please contact our stockbroker fraud law firm today and ask for your free case evaluation.

You have until August 31, 2011 to send a written exclusion to the class counsel. Your letter cannot be postmarked after the deadline. Failure to opt out will prevent you from filing your own case at a later today. You should, however, get your share of the settlement.

OppenheimerFunds is a Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company subsidiary. Defendants of the class action were charged with violating the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Securities Act of 1933.

The Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund lost at least 33% of its value in 2008. During the first three months of 2009 it lost another 10%. The bond was promoted as appropriate for and offered by a number of 529 college savings plans, a number of annuities, and retirement plans. The Champion Fund lost about 80% of its value in 2008.

While staying part of a class action in a securities case may appear to be the easy way to recover your investment losses, this is truly not the case. Why should you get back so much left when you’ve lost so much?

By retaining the services of an experienced securities fraud law firm, you increase your chances of recovering the maximum amount possible. We know how devastating it can be to lose money that you have worked so hard for and saved.

OppenheimerFunds Settles Mismanagement Case for $100 Million, Bloomberg Businessweek, July 26, 2011
OppenheimerFunds to pay $100 million to settle mismanagement case, Denver Post, July 27, 2011
More Blog Posts:
Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Now a Class Action Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 25, 2011
Class Members of Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation Can Still Opt Out to File Individual Securities Claim, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 6, 2010
Wells Fargo Settles Mortgage-Backed Securities Class Action Case for $125M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 19, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Yet Another Securities Case Against a Financial Firm Alleged to Have Aided Enron in its Scams is Dismissed Without Liability in Texas!

Published on: January 29, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Many financial firms settled claims filed by those defrauded in the Enron debacle. Meanwhile, many more Enron securities fraud cases have been dismissed by a court system riddled with special interest influence. No financial firm has been held liable and certain individuals at those firms were held liable only to have their convictions reversed. Thus, perhaps the largest, most notorious and most brazen fraud ever perpetuated by a publicly traded firm against its own shareholders will end not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Earlier this month, securities charges against Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. were dropped in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The financial firm was accused of fraudulently getting two entities to buy beneficial ownership interests in Osprey Trust. The special purpose entity was allegedly secured using worthless investments bought from Enron. The plaintiffs contend that the assets were “dumped” into Osprey as part of a bigger scheme to defraud investors and manipulate Enron’s financial statements.

The court said that because the plaintiffs did not specify any affirmative misrepresentation made by a Deutsche Bank official, they did not and “cannot plead with particularity either scienter on the part of a Deutsche Bank speaker or writer or reasonable reliance … on a claimed misrepresentation.” The court also said that the financial firm’s stated motive for alleged defraud, which allegedly was for tax benefits and high fees, is a common incentive among financial firms and their officers and therefore is not enough for stating “a claim for fraud” under the laws of Texas and New York.

Related Web Resources:
Newby, et al v. Enron Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
The Fall of Enron, Chron.com Continue Reading ›

Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund Resulted In Significant Financial Losses for Investors from Citigroup, UBS, Merrill Lynch, and Other Large Financial Firms

Published on: August 16, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

If you are an investor who suffered losses because you invested in the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund, do not hesitate to contact our securities fraud law firm to request your free case evaluation. Unfortunately, many investors were not apprised of the risks they were taking on when they placed their money in these high risk, very illiquid derivatives. Many of these securities victims were clients of large brokerage firms, such as UBS, Citigroup Smith Barney, Wachovia, Linsco Private Ledger LPL, Merrill Lynch, UBS, ING, Stifel, and Gun Allen.

Thousands of investors were led to believe, via the prospectus, the financial advisers, and the marketing collateral, that the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund was a high income fund that wasn’t much riskier than a high income fund peer group or a conservative high income fund. Unfortunately, this was not the case at all, and many investors ended up sustaining major losses when the fund lost 79.1 for the 2008 calendar year.

Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund
Hoping that commercial mortgage-backed securities would rally, the fund had placed a large bet in high risk derivatives, such as credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities-not to mention total-return swaps in 2006. Unfortunately, this is not what ended up happening.

In September 2008 alone, credit default swaps declined by $238 million. It was during this time that the fund sold credit default swaps on beleaguered companies, including Tribune Co., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., General Motors Corp, and American International Group Inc. The fund also raised its gamble on mortgage-related bonds that, with defaults rising, started to fail.

Hundreds of millions of dollars has reportedly been lost, and the fund’s investors have not been the only ones to suffer financial losses. Over 10% of the fund was held by other OppenheimerFunds offerings, including funds that bundled a number of the firm’s products together.

Related Web Resources:
Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund, MorningStar
FINRA Arbitration and Mediation
Continue Reading ›

Oregon’s Attorney General Files $36 Million Lawsuit Against OppenheimerFunds

Published on: April 21, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Last week, Oregon’s Attorney General sued OppenheimerFunds Inc. for allegedly mismanaging the state’s 529 College Savings Plan when it recommended a bond that took risks that were not in alignment with the Plan’s conservative investment objectives. The 529 College Savings Plan allows investors to avail of tax benefits while they save for their children’s college education.

According to the $36 million securities fraud lawsuit, the defendants had signed a contract agreeing to recommend only funds that were consistent with the Oregon 529 College Savings Board’s investment policy and would let the board know about any fund changes. Also, as an investment adviser, OppenheimerFunds had fiduciary duties it owed the board.

The complaint contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary and contractual duties by continuing to recommend the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund even after it took part in risky leverage and speculative bets with derivatives.

According to the lawsuit, the Oregon College Savings Plan Trust retained the services of OppenheimerFunds to put together, manage, and make recommendations for its portfolios. All recommendations had to be compatible with each portfolio’s objectives.

When OppenheimerFunds initially recommended the Core Bond Fund, the bond was a “straightforward” bond fund that was primarily invested in high-quality corporate bonds. That is, until sometime between 2007 and 2008 when fund managers allegedly began taking part in credit default swaps and total return swaps. This, says the lawsuit, dramatically changed the risk profile of the fund.

Yet OppenheimerFunds failed to let the board know about this change until January 22. The fund lost more than 35% of its value in 2008 and another 10% during the first three months of 2009. The complaint says that rather than moderate the degree of risk, OppenheimerFunds increased the risks.

OppenheimerFunds maintains that significant losses occurred as a result of market volatility and not due to dramatic changes in investment strategies and that the Board was notified of all changes. The investment adviser says it is extremely disappointed with the lawsuit and expressed concern that an outside lawyer, and not the state, conducted the probe into the case.

However, Keith S. Dubanevich, the special counsel in the Oregon attorney general’s office, says it is their common practice to retain outside help when dealing with certain areas of law, including securities fraud, and that Oregon’s Justice Department did lead the investigation.

Related Web Resources:
Oregon Sues Over Risks Taken In Its ‘529’ Fund, The Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2009
Oregon 529 College Savings Network

Oregon Attorney Continue Reading ›

Massachusetts Top Securities Regulator Charges Oppenheimer & Co with Unethical Conduct and Fraud

Published on: November 20, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin is charging Oppenheimer & Co. with unethical conduct and fraud. The state’s top securities regulator is accusing the investment bank of continuing to market and sell auction rate securities to clients even as Oppenheimer executives were getting rid of their own ARS holdings, worth $3 million, before the collapse.

Galvin says that Oppenheimer Chairman and Chief Executive Albert Lowenthal and other firm executives kept clients and other firm employees “in the dark” about the collapsing ARS market. His office is seeking to revoke Lowenthal’s broker-dealer registration in Massachusetts because he says that the CEO and other Oppenheimer executives “betrayed” their clients’ trust. This is the first time that a state regulator has charged one of the smaller brokers for its alleged involvement in the sale of auction-rate securities while the market was failing.

Galvin says that Oppenheimer clients in Massachusetts are unable to access some $56 million because their ARS investments have been frozen since February. Also named in Galvin’s complaint are ARS Managing Director Greg White and Senior Managing Director Robert Lowenthal.

Oppenheimer and its firm executives are denying Galvin’s allegations. On Tuesday, the investment bank issued a statement claiming that its employees had no knowledge of the kinds of actions that their larger firm counterparts engaged in that contributed to the ARS market collapse. The investment bank also maintains that its executives personally bought and sold ARS during the period noted in Galvin’s complaint, and they continue to hold a number of these securities.

Oppenheimer says it is working with financing sources and regulators to help investors cash out of their ARS.

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts sues Oppenheimer & Co over ARS sales, Reuters, November 18, 2008
Galvin blasts Oppenheimer & Co. over auction-rate securities, Boston Herald, November 18, 2008

Related Web Resources:

View the Exhibits (PDF)

Oppenheimer & Co.
Continue Reading ›

Oppenheimer & Co. Agrees to Settle FINRA Market Timing Charges for $4.5 Million

Published on: March 5, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Oppenheimer & Co. has settled Financial Industry Regulatory Association charges regarding the market timing of mutual funds. The company has agreed to pay $4.25 million as restitution to five dozen mutual fund companies, as well as a $250,000 fine.

FINRA says that Oppenheimer failed to stop five traders’ engagement in improper, short-term mutual fund trading. The self-regulatory organization noted Oppenheimer’s failure to set up, manage, and enforce systems of supervision to detect and prevent market timing activities.

As a result, FINRA says that Oppenheimer disregarded hundreds of warnings and requests from mutual funds and life insurance companies that they stop making the improper trades. Some 65 mutual funds even warned Oppenheimer that short-term trades were not in the best interests of long-term shareholders.

Oppenheimer to Pay $1 Million to Settle FINRA Bogus Data Charges

Published on: November 13, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Oppenheimer & Co. says it will pay a $1 million fine to settle charges by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority that it turned in false information regarding mutual fund breakpoints. The company also has agreed to submit to having an independent consultant conduct an audit regarding how Oppenheimer handles regulatory inquiries. By agreeing to the settlement terms, Oppenheimer is not agreeing to or denying FINRA’s allegations.

Background

FINRA says it initially asked Oppenheimer for the information in March 2003 when the self-regulatory organization (then the NASD) looked at over 2000 broker-dealers who had sold front-end loan funds over a two-year period.

Oppenheimer, Morgan Stanley, Nomura Securities, and A.G. Edwards Traders Face SEC Charges of Stealing Stock Loan Kickbacks Worth $12 Million Plus

Published on: October 12, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

38 stock loan traders from A.G. Edwards, Morgan Stanley, Oppenheimer, and Nomura Securities are accused of stealing over $12 Million in stock loan kickbacks from their Wall Street firms. The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged the employees with the more than $12 million theft.

The SEC says that from 1998-2006, the traders worked with fake stock loan finders to skim profits from their employers through finder fees as well as cash kickbacks from finders. The stock loan traders conducted actual, legal stock loans but logged that the transactions involved finders so there would be finder’s fees.

The finders were usually friends or relatives of the traders who were in charge of illegitimate “shell companies” that were not even a part of the stock loan business. The “finder” would then pay traders with stock loan kickbacks. The more sophisticated scams involved traders using their kickbacks to pay the other traders who had pushed through the loan transactions.

Oppenheimer Fined $1 Million for Abuse of Widow – Later Told She “Only Had Herself to Blame”

Published on: July 10, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Massachusetts securities regulators fined Oppenheimer & Company, Inc. a million dollars for failing to supervise its representatives and ordered the company to also pay $135,000 to the victim, the difference between the losses she sustained and the amount Oppenheimer earlier paid her.

Oppenheimer was charged with failing to supervise a broker as he allegedly engaged in acts including theft, fraud, churning and unauthorized trading in the account of an elderly couple. The firm consented to the order without admitting or denying the claims. The broker is currently under indictment for securities fraud.

After her husband died, personnel at the elderly woman’s bank raised concerns over the activity which had occurred in the couple’s brokerage account. The widow approached Oppenheimer and claims were ultimately filed in arbitration. Oppenheimer then responded by saying she “only has herself to blame for any losses or other injury she may have suffered.” The arbitration claims were later resolved with Oppenheimer paying less than was lost.

Oppenheimer CEO Charged by NASD with Knowingly Producing Inaccurate Data

Published on: January 9, 2006 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The NASD is charging Albert Lowenthal, Oppenheimer & Co.’s CEO, with knowingly turning in data that was not complete or accurate when it responded to the self-regulatory agency’s request that the brokerage firm assess its own practices pertaining to mutual fund breakpoint discounts. This latest complaint stems from a report issued in 2003 by NASD and other regulators that demonstrated how almost one in three mutual fund transactions in front-end load mutual funds did not get a breakpoint discount even though they looked to be eligible for one.

Because of this, NASD told about 2,000 brokerage firms that sold front-end load mutual funds during the two years previous to perform their own assessment of self-compliance regarding related requirements and report their findings. Oppenheimer (OPY) was one of the broker-dealers that got this request.

The breakpoint sweep led to investors getting over $130 million back. These are breakpoint discounts they should have received previously.