Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
|
Stockholders File Lawsuit Against Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC : Falcon Strategies Two B LLC Hedge Fund |
 |
 |
|
|
A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice was entered on May 12, 2008 by the plaintiff.
According to the complaint, on September 30, 2005, Falcon Strategies Two B, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as "Falcon") a Delaware limited liability company commenced operations. Shortly thereafter, Falcon entered into an investment management agreement with Citigroup Alternative Investments, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "CAI") to provide investment management services for the Falcon Fund. CAI is a subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. and is registered by the Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment advisor. Following the execution of the management agreement with CAI, Citigroup through its employees, agents, and other personnel began actively marketing shares of Falcon Strategies Two B LLC to its clients. This included marketing shares through Smith Barney, a subsidiary of Citigroup. The Defendants actively marketed the Fund as a multi strategy fixed income alternative that promised to provide investors with absolute returns, current income and portfolio diversification. The Fund's philosophy was advertised as utilizing complex arbitrage and hedge strategies that would severely limit risk and generate income for the investor. All of the Defendants understood this was the stated goal and purpose of the Falcon Fund. As a result, shares in Falcon Fund were actively marketed by the investment advisors of the Defendants in concert with one another to induce investors to purchase shares of the fund. The Defendants induced investors by promising an absolute return and an alpha strategy that would provide attractive risk adjusted returns in excess of fixed income. The subscription agreement, provided to each investor, outlined a program that included: (1) A target return of 7% to 10% absolute return per annum over a five year investment horizon and (2) a target volatility of 5% over a five year investment horizon. However, at all times, Defendants knew and were aware that investment decisions had been made and actions taken by the Fund manager, that created large volatility and risk for the investors. Defendants undertook leveraged fixed income strategies that were far from conservative and were extremely risky which resulted in substantial losses of principle for the investors. During CAI's management of the fund, at no time were the high risk investment strategies utilized by the fund manager disclosed to the investors, including the Plaintiff. In fact, Standard and Poor's had assigned the Fund an S2 volatility rating given its belief that Falcon maintained a low to moderate sensitivity to change in market conditions given its stated investment strategy. An S2 rating is defined by Standard and Poor's as equivalent to "a portfolio comprised of government securities maturing in 3 - 7 years." However, due to the investment/management decisions of the Defendants, Standard and Poor's changed their rating of the Fund to an S5 on January 8, 2008. A Standard and Poor's S5 rating indicate the Fund "may be exposed to a variety of significant risk, including high concentration risks, high leverage in investments in structured and/or liquid securities." This is a much different product than what was purchased by the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated who purchased their funds prior to January 8, 2008. At all times, the Defendants were aware and knew high risk investment and management strategies were being undertaken managing the Fund, but failed to disclose those investment strategies to the existing investors and continued to market the fund as a low risk investment tool to investors. These were material misrepresentations made to the investing public and the Defendants made these representations with scienter and knowledge that the representations were false. Defendant's motive for undertaking high risk investment strategies with the Fund was the generation of exorbitant fees which were tied to total fund assets. Specifically, all Plaintiffs were charged with a 2 1/2% management fee regardless of performance. However, in addition to the 2 1/2%, the Fund also allowed for an incentive allocation which provided the Defendants, including CIA, an additional fee based on performance. Therefore, the more money the manager earned for the Fund, the higher their compensation. This created an incentive for CAI and the other Defendants to take greater risk with the Fund's assets to try and generate a greater return.
If you bought Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC : Falcon Strategies Two B LLC Hedge Fund securities and would like to obtain information about the Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC : Falcon Strategies Two B LLC Hedge Fund lawsuit, then you are invited to call Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC toll free at (866) 467-1400 to speak with an attorney or visit www.kgscounsel.com.
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
Several class actions have been filed against human genome mining company deCODE genetics, Inc. (Nasdaq:DCGN) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between October 29, 2003, and August 26, 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 Electronic Arts Inc. (EA), (NasdaqNM:ERTS), certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between January 25, 2005 and March 21, 2005. 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. A class action has been filed against American Tower Corporation (AMT), certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between February 1, 2006 and May 24, 2006. 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. Several class actions have been filed against AOL Time Warner, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased Purchase Pro, Inc., (Pink sheets: PROEQ) (now known as Pro-After, Inc.) common stock between March 20, 2000, and May 21, 2001. 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. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. A class action has been filed against PHH Corporation (PHH), certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between May 12, 2005 and March 1, 2006. 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. A class action has been filed the Federal National Mortgage Corporation (Fannie Mae) (NYSE: FNM_PK) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company’s common stock between January 13, 2000 and September 22, 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.
|
|