Answer:
On October 31, 2003, the first in a series of putative securities class action complaints was filed against Fred Alger Management, Inc. and related entities in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging market-timing and late trading in the Alger Funds in violation of the federal securities laws. Market-timing is an investment technique involving short-term, “in and out” trading of mutual fund shares, designed to exploit inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies price their shares. Late trading is an investment practice whereby investors are permitted to place orders to buy, sell or exchange mutual fund shares using the day’s net asset value (“NAV”) after the 4:00 p.m. eastern time cut-off, capitalizing on information obtained after the close of the market. On November 24, 2003, a derivative action resulting from the same alleged market-timing and late trading practices was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
In the weeks and months that followed, numerous additional suits were filed in courts throughout the country. Various other mutual fund families identified as being involved in the regulatory market-timing and late trading investigations likewise were named in numerous complaints filed in courts throughout the United States. On February 20, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued an order centralizing all of these actions in one multi-district docket in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland under the caption MDL-1586 - In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation (the “MDL Actions”). By letters to counsel in the MDL Actions dated April 9, 2004 and April 12, 2004, the Court assigned four Judges separate tracks of the MDL Actions, with multiple mutual fund families assigned to sub-tracks within each track. The Alger Sub-track was assigned to the Honorable J. Frederick Motz.
On May 25, 2004, the Court issued a case management order coordinating all class actions and other direct cases involving Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS, One Group and Putnam mutual funds, as well as all cases filed on behalf of purchasers or holders of shares of the corporate parents of any of these entities or their investment advisors (including all cases brought nominally on behalf of the funds or corporate parents of the funds or their investment advisors and styled as derivative actions), for pretrial purposes under the caption In re Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS, One Group and Putnam, Civil No. 04-md-15863-JFM. By this same case management order, the Court appointed Donna Roubicek (formerly, Donna Gaffney) as lead plaintiff for the consolidated class claims and her selection of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (now known as Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP) as lead class counsel for the MDL Alger Sub-track (“Investor Lead Counsel”) and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP as lead fund derivative counsel for the MDL Alger Sub-track (“Derivative Counsel”).
On September 29, 2004, amended complaints were filed in the class and derivative actions (the “Complaints”). Claims were asserted in the Actions against persons and entities affiliated with the Alger Funds, including the investment advisor to the Alger Funds and its affiliates, as well as unaffiliated entities, including alleged market-timers and other parties that were alleged to have participated in or facilitated the market timers’ trading of the Alger Funds. Specifically, plaintiffs in the class action asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 34(b), 36(a), 36(b), 47 and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("ICA"), and state law. Plaintiffs in the derivative action asserted claims under Sections 36(a), 36(b), 47 and 48 of the (ICA), Sections 206 and 215 of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, and state law. On February 25, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the Complaints.
On August 25, 2005, Judge Motz issued an order addressing common issues presented in the MDL Actions. On November 3, 2005, Judge Motz issued a Memorandum ruling on the motions to dismiss filed by various defendants in the Alger Sub-track, denying in part and granting in part the motions to dismiss. On December 1, 2005, Wilshire filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s November 3, 2005 Order, and on January 11, 2006, the Alger Defendants filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the Court’s November 3, 2005 Order. Following further briefing, the parties submitted proposed orders for the Court’s review and entry. Thereafter, certain of the parties began discovery.
Discussions of possible settlements of the Actions proceeded with various groups of defendants at various times throughout the litigation. The Canary Defendants reached the first agreement in principle to settle and provided cooperation to Plaintiffs in pursuing their claims against the other defendants. Subsequently, agreements in principle to settle were reached with the other Settling Entities.