Mutual-Fund Suit Vs Citigroup Dismissed
Business Law
[##_1L|1062093828.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]A federal judge in New York on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit against Citigroup Inc. that alleged it didn't disclose to mutual-fund customers millions of dollars in savings allegedly pocketed by its asset-management business. In an order Wednesday, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III in Manhattan dismissed claims by investors in the Smith Barney family of funds against Smith Barney Fund Management LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which are part of Citigroup Asset Management. The judge gave the investors the right to replead some claims by Oct. 19.
The judge also dismissed claims against Thomas W. Jones, the former chief executive of Citigroup Asset Management, and Lewis E. Daidone, the former treasurer and chief financial officer of the Smith Barney family of funds.
"It is undisputed that defendants disclosed the amount of fees paid by the funds. Thus, plaintiffs were in possession of all material information, i.e., they knew the value of the funds," the judge said in a nine-page opinion.
The consolidated lawsuit alleged that Citigroup's asset-management business took most of the benefit of a discount from using an affiliated transfer agent for itself, pocketing more than $90 million, rather than passing on those savings to the mutual funds and their customers.
In February, another federal judge in Manhattan dismissed a similar case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Jones and Daidone. Citigroup itself settled the SEC's charges in May 2005 and agreed to pay $208 million to affected mutual-fund customers. In settling, the financial-services company didn't admit or deny wrongdoing.
A lawyer for the investors and a Citigroup spokesman didn't immediately return phone calls seeking comment Wednesday.
Related listings
-
Vonage Gets Another Black Eye
Business Law 09/26/2007[##_1L|1394250783.jpg|width="120" height="138" alt=""|_##]For Vonage, things have gone from bad to worse. On Sept. 25, a jury found that Vonage infringed on Sprint Nextel's patents. It asked Vonage to pay $69.5 million in damages and a 5% royalty rat...
-
Fed's Bernanke predicts further mortgage turmoil
Business Law 09/20/2007More delinquencies and foreclosures can be expected in the subprime, adjustable-rate mortgage market as borrowers face interest-rate resets, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday. In testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, ...
-
Investors await Fed decision on rate cut
Business Law 09/18/2007Federal Reserve policymakers opened a long-awaited meeting on interest rates Tuesday amid expectations of a move to revive a sputtering economy, but with some arguing against a return to easy-money conditions blamed for the problems.The Federal Open ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.