-
You must submit the settlement "Proof" form attached below, in order to participate in this settlement. There is a strict deadline of February 28, 2018 by which all claims must be submitted. The instructions for submitting are included in the "Proof" and the "Notice" files attached below for your download. DO NOT SEND THE FORMS TO THE SHAREHOLDERS FOUNDATION, INC.
-
To have your information reviewed for options and to receive notifications about this case, please send an email to mail@shareholdersfoundation.com, or call us at (858) 779-1554.
Lawsuit Overview
Settlement Overview
You must register to view and download the Settlement Notice and Settlement Proof.
July 10, 2017 - A stipulation of settlement was filed by the parties.
March 20, 2013 - The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
January 15, 2010 - A consolidated complaint was filed.
June 17, 2009 - The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
February 9, 2009 - An investor in the Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund (MUTF: OCACX, MUTF: OCABX, MUTF: OPCAX) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors who purchased the Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund (MUTF: OPCAX, MUTF: OCABX, MUTF: OCACX) between September 27, 2006 and November 28, 2008.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that this supposedly conservative “preservation of capital” mutual fund misled investors about the Fund’s investment objectives and underlying risks and violated its stated fundamental investment policies. The Fund lost over 41% of its net asset value in 2008, while comparable funds on average lost only 11.5% over the same period. The net asset value of the Fund decreased by more than $1.1 billion in 2008.
According to the lawsuit, the Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund policies and operations violated the preservation of capital objective by concentrating 78% of its assets in bonds rated at the lowest investment grade or below, and concentrating 60% in bonds that were not rated by any independent rating agency.
In addition, the Fund violated a fundamental investment policy against overconcentration in a single industry by investing 33% of the Fund’s assets in the California real estate development industry through its investments in “dirt bonds.” These particularly risky investments are based on contracts for land developments that have not been built and were especially vulnerable to the recent declines in California’s real estate market.
In addition, Oppenheimer also failed to disclose that, because of the Fund’s overconcentration in lower rated bonds and bonds that had not been rated by any independent agency, there was a significant risk that more than 25% of its assets were in junk bonds, another violation of the Fund’s fundamental investment policies.