|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 3237 | Stocks | 03/14/2004
Several class actions have been filed against Eaton Vance Corporation, Inc. (NYSE: EV), Eaton Vance Management, Boston Management and Research, Lloyd George Investment Management (B.V.I.) Limited, and Lloyd George Investment Management (Bermuda) Limited and certain individuals by investors who purchased the shares of Eaton Vance mutual funds between January 30, 1999, to November 17, 2003. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by drawing upon the assets of the Eaton Vance Funds to pay brokers to aggressively push Eaton Vance Funds over other funds, and concealing those payments from investors by disguising them as brokerage commissions. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock.
Brokerage commissions, though payable from fund assets, are allegedly not disclosed to investors in the Eaton Vance funds public filings or elsewhere. The action alleges that Eaton Vance funds investors were induced to purchase Eaton Vance Funds by brokers who received undisclosed payments from the investment adviser defendants to push the funds over other mutual funds and who therefore had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Then, once invested in one or more of the Eaton Vance funds, investors were forced to pay the undisclosed fees that were used to pay brokers. The action alleges that the investment adviser defendants were motivated to make these secret payments to finance the improper marketing of Eaton Vance funds because their fees were calculated as a percentage of funds under management and, therefore, tended to increase as the number of Eaton Vance funds investors grew. The investment adviser defendants allegedly attempted to justify this conduct on the ground that by increasing the Eaton Vance funds assets they were creating economies of scale that inured to the benefit of investors-- Eaton Vance funds investors actually received none of the benefits of these purported economies of sale. Rather, fees and costs associated with the Eaton Vance funds steadily increased during the applicable period, in large part because the investment adviser defendants continued to skim from the Eaton Vance Funds to finance their ongoing marketing campaign. The action alleges that the Eaton Vance funds trustees, who purported to be Eaton Vance investor watchdogs, knowingly or recklessly permitted this conduct to occur. The action alleges that the investment adviser defendants also violated the Investment Company Act because, to further their improper campaign, they made untrue statements of material fact in fund registration statements, and material omissions, with respect to the procedure for determining the amount of fees payable to the investment adviser defendants and with respect to the improper uses to which the fees were put. Additionally, the Eaton Vance fund trustees allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the Eaton Vance funds investors by knowingly or recklessly allowing the improper conduct. The following mutual funds are subject to this lawsuit: At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Stocks Cases of Interest Two class action cases have been filed in San Diego Superior Court against strip mall developer Price Legacy Corporation (Nasdaq: PLRE) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders. The actions claim that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to stockholders in a recent merger with PL Retail LLC. Specifically, the stockholders claim that PL Retail did not pay fair value when it acquired Price Legacy and that Price legacy should have held out for a better price. According to a press release dated March 24, 2008, the complaint charges Humana and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company provides various health and supplemental benefit plans for employer groups, government benefit programs, and individuals in the United States. Kahn Gauthier Swick is investigating possible legal actions, against stockbrokers and other investment advisors, on behalf of investors who lost $100,000 or more. When an investor believes that his or her stockbroker or investment advisor acted improperly, the investor will naturally seek compensation for the losses suffered as a result of the broker's or advisor's misconduct. Most investor disputes against stockbrokerage firms and investment advisors are resolved through individual actions rather than class actions. Several class actions have been filed against media holding company Belo Corporation (NYSE:BLC) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between May 12, 2003, and August 6, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. Several class actions have been filed against nutritional supplement manufacturer NBTY, Inc., (NYSE: NTY) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between April 22, 2004, and June 16, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. A class action has been filed against Staar Surgical Company, a California based developer, manufacturer and global distributor of medical devices for use in cataract, refractive and glaucoma surgery, (NASDAQ: STAA) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company’s common stock between April 3, 2003 and January 6, 2004. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company’s securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. |
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
