Semi-Annual Report by an Investment Company — Form N-SAR — ICA’40
Filing Table of Contents
Document/Exhibit Description Pages Size
1: NSAR-A Semi-Annual Report by an Investment Company 51 213K
2: EX-99.77C VOTES Matters Submitted to a Vote of Security 959± 3.77M
Holders
3: EX-99.77D POLICIES Policies re: Security Investments 1 7K
4: EX-99.77D POLICIES Policies re: Security Investments 1 7K
5: EX-99.77E LEGAL Legal Proceeding 8 38K
6: EX-99.77M MERGERS Merger Info 959± 3.77M
7: EX-99.77M MERGERS Merger Info 959± 3.77M
8: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 3 12K
9: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 3 17K
10: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 9 29K
11: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 9 37K
12: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 30 116K
13: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 16 59K
14: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 2 11K
15: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 1 8K
16: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 1 8K
17: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 1 9K
18: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 1 8K
19: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 1 8K
20: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 1 8K
21: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 1 8K
22: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 1 8K
23: EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB Other Disclosure 1 9K
‘EX-99.77E LEGAL’ — Legal Proceeding
| EX-99.77E LEGAL | 1st Page of 8 | TOC | ↑Top | Previous | Next | ↓Bottom | Just 1st |
|---|
SUB-ITEM 77E
AIM FUNDS GROUP
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
SETTLED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS RELATED TO MARKET TIMING
On October 8, 2004, INVESCO Funds Group, Inc. ("IFG") (the former investment
advisor to certain AIM Funds), AIM and A I M Distributors, Inc. ("ADI") (the
distributor of the retail AIM Funds) reached final settlements with certain
regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") the New
York Attorney General and the Colorado Attorney General, to resolve civil
enforcement actions and/or investigations related to market timing and related
activity in the AIM Funds, including those formerly advised by IFG. As part of
the settlements, a $325 million fair fund ($110 million of which is civil
penalties) is being created to compensate shareholders harmed by market timing
and related activity in funds formerly advised by IFG. Additionally, AIM and
ADI agreed to create a $50 million fair fund ($30 million of which is civil
penalties) to compensate shareholders harmed by market timing and related
activity in funds advised by AIM. These two fair funds may increase as a result
of contributions from third parties who reach final settlements with the SEC or
other regulators to resolve allegations of market timing and/or late trading
that also may have harmed applicable AIM Funds. These two fair funds will be
distributed in accordance with a methodology to be determined by AIM's
independent distribution consultant, in consultation with AIM and the
independent trustees of the AIM Funds and acceptable to the staff of the SEC.
PENDING LITIGATION
Pending Regulatory Action Alleging Market Timing
------------------------------------------------
On April 12, 2005, the Attorney General of the State of West Virginia ("WVAG")
filed a civil lawsuit against AIM, IFG and ADI, as well as numerous unrelated
mutual fund complexes and financial institutions. None of the AIM Funds has
been named as a defendant in this lawsuit. The WVAG complaint, filed in the
Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia [Civil Action No. 05-C-81],
alleges, in substance, that AIM, IFG and ADI engaged in unfair competition
and/or unfair or deceptive trade practices by failing to disclose in the
prospectuses for the AIM Funds, including those formerly advised by IFG, that
they had entered into certain arrangements permitting market timing of such
Funds. As a result of the foregoing, the WVAG alleges violations of W. Va. Code
ss. 46A-1-101, et seq. (the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act).
The WVAG complaint is seeking injunctive relief; civil monetary penalties; a
writ of quo warranto against the defendants; pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; costs and expenses, including counsel fees; and other relief.
If AIM is unsuccessful in its defense of the WVAG lawsuit, it could be barred
from serving as an investment adviser for any investment company registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (a "registered investment
company"). Such results could affect the ability of AIM or any other investment
advisor directly or indirectly owned by AMVESCAP PLC, from serving as an
investment advisor to any registered investment company, including your Fund.
Your Fund has been informed by AIM that, if these results occur, AIM will seek
exemptive relief from the SEC to permit it to continue to serve as your Fund's
investment advisor. There is no assurance that such exemptive relief will be
granted.
On May 31, 2005, the defendants removed this lawsuit to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia at Wheeling. On June 13, 2005, the
MDL Court (as defined below)
issued a Conditional Transfer Order transferring this lawsuit to the MDL Court.
On June 29, 2005, the WVAG filed a Notice of Opposition to this Conditional
Transfer Order. On July 7, 2005, the Supreme Court of West Virginia ruled in
the context of a separate lawsuit that the WVAG does not have authority
pursuant to W. Va. Code Section 46A-6-104 of the West Virginia Consumer Credit
and Protection Act to bring an action based upon conduct that is ancillary to
the purchase or sale of securities. AIM intends to seek dismissal of the WVAG's
lawsuit against it, IFG and ADI in light of this ruling.
Private Civil Actions Alleging Market Timing
--------------------------------------------
Multiple civil lawsuits, including purported class action and shareholder
derivative suits, have been filed against various parties (including, depending
on the lawsuit, certain AIM Funds, IFG, AIM, AIM Management, AMVESCAP, certain
related entities, certain of their current and former officers and/or certain
unrelated third parties) based on allegations of improper market timing and
related activity in the AIM Funds. These lawsuits allege a variety of theories
of recovery, including but not limited to: (i) violation of various provisions
of the Federal and state securities laws; (ii) violation of various provisions
of ERISA; (iii) breach of fiduciary duty; and/or (iv) breach of contract. These
lawsuits were initiated in both Federal and state courts and seek such remedies
as compensatory damages; restitution; injunctive relief; disgorgement of
management fees; imposition of a constructive trust; removal of certain
directors and/or employees; various corrective measures under ERISA; rescission
of certain Funds' advisory agreements; interest; and attorneys' and experts'
fees. The list below identifies such lawsuits that have been served on IFG,
AIM, the AIM Funds or related entities, or for which service of process has
been waived, as of August 19, 2005 (with the exception of the Sayegh lawsuit
discussed below).
o RICHARD LEPERA, On Behalf Of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated, v.
INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL, in the District Court, City and County
of Denver, Colorado, (Civil Action No. 03-CV-7600), filed on October 2,
2003.
o MIKE SAYEGH, On Behalf of the General Public, v. JANUS CAPITAL
CORPORATION, ET AL., in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC304655), filed on October 22, 2003 and
amended on December 17, 2003 to substitute INVESCO Funds Group, Inc. and
Raymond R. Cunningham for unnamed Doe defendants.
o RAJ SANYAL, Derivately On Behalf of NATIONS INTERNATIONAL EQUITY FUND, ET
AL., v. WILLIAM P. CARMICHAEL, in the Superior Court Division, State of
North Carolina (Civil Action No. 03-CVS-19622), filed on November 14,
2003.
o L. SCOTT KARLIN, Derivatively On Behalf of INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., v.
AMVESCAP, PLC, ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of
Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-MK-2406), filed on November 28, 2003.
o RICHARD RAVER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL., in the United States
District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-F-2441), filed
on December 2, 2003.
o JERRY FATTAH, Custodian For BASIM FATTAH, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND,
ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil
Action No. 03-F-2456), filed on December 4, 2003.
2
o EDWARD LOWINGER and SHARON LOWINGER, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, ET
AL., in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
(Civil Action No. 03-CV-9634), filed on December 4, 2003.
o JOEL GOODMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC. AND RAYMOND R. CUNNINGHAM, in the District
Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado (Case Number 03CV9268), filed
on December 5, 2003.
o STEVEN B. EHRLICH, Custodian For ALEXA P. EHRLICH, UGTMA/FLORIDA, and
DENNY P. JACOBSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, ET AL., in the United
States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-N-2559),
filed on December 17, 2003.
o JOSEPH R. RUSSO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, ET AL., in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York (Civil Action No.
03-CV-10045), filed on December 18, 2003.
o MIRIAM CALDERON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. AMVESCAP PLC, ET AL., in the United States District Court,
District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-M-2604), filed on December 24,
2003.
o PAT B. GORSUCH and GEORGE L. GORSUCH v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC. AND AIM
ADVISER, INC., in the United States District Court, District of Colorado
(Civil Action No. 03-MK-2612), filed on December 24, 2003.
o LORI WEINRIB, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL., in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 04-CV-00492), filed on
January 21, 2004.
o ROBERT S. BALLAGH, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL., in the United States
District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 04-MK-0152), filed
on January 28, 2004.
o JONATHAN GALLO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL., in the United States
District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 04-MK-0151), filed
on January 28, 2004.
o EILEEN CLANCY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, ET AL., in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York (Civil Action No.
04-CV-0713), filed on January 30, 2004.
o SCOTT WALDMAN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v.
INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL., in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 04-CV-00915), filed on
February 3, 2004.
3
o CARL E. VONDER HAAR and MARILYN P. MARTIN, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL., in the
United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No.
04-CV-812), filed on February 5, 2004.
o HENRY KRAMER, Derivatively On Behalf of INVESCO ENERGY FUND, ET AL., v.
AMVESCAP, PLC, ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of
Colorado (Civil Action No. 04-MK-0397), filed on March 4, 2004.
o CYNTHIA L. ESSENMACHER, Derivatively On Behalf of INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND,
ET AL., v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUPS, INC., ET AL., in the United States
District Court, District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 04-CV-188), filed
on March 29, 2004.
o ANNE G. PERENTESIS (WIDOW) v. AIM INVESTMENTS, ET AL (INVESCO FUNDS GROUP,
INC.), in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore County (Case No.
080400228152005), filed on July 21, 2005.
All lawsuits based on allegations of market timing, late trading, and related
issues have been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (the "MDL Court") for consolidated or coordinated
pre-trial proceedings, with one exception. Pursuant to an Order of the MDL
Court, plaintiffs in the above lawsuits (with the exception of Carl E. Vonder
Haar, et al. v. INVESCO Funds Group, Inc. et al., Mike Sayegh v. Janus Capital
Corporation, et al. and Anne G. Perentesis (Widow) v. AIM Investments, et al)
consolidated their claims for pre-trial purposes into three amended complaints
against various AIM- and IFG-related parties: (i) a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint purportedly brought on behalf of shareholders of the AIM Funds
(the Lepera lawsuit discussed below); (ii) a Consolidated Amended Fund
Derivative Complaint purportedly brought on behalf of the AIM Funds and fund
registrants (the Essenmacher lawsuit discussed below); and (iii) an Amended
Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Securities Act ("ERISA") purportedly brought on behalf of participants in
AMVESCAP's 401(k) plan (the Calderon lawsuit discussed below). The plaintiffs
in the Vonder Haar and Sayegh lawsuits continue to seek remand of their
lawsuits to state court. The Perentesis lawsuit has not been transferred to the
MDL Court. Set forth below is detailed information about these three amended
complaints.
o RICHARD LEPERA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated (LEAD PLAINTIFF: CITY OF CHICAGO DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN), v.
INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL, in the MDL Court (Case No. 04-MD-15864;
No. 04-CV-00814-JFM) (originally in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado), filed on September 29, 2004.
o CYNTHIA ESSENMACHER, ET AL., Derivatively on Behalf of the Mutual Funds,
Trusts and Corporations Comprising the Invesco and AIM Family of Mutual
Funds v. AMVESCAP, PLC, ET AL., in the MDL Court (Case No.
04-MD-15864-FPS; No. 04-819), filed on September 29, 2004.
o MIRIAM CALDERON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. AVZ, INC., ET AL., in the MDL Court (Case No.
1:04-MD-15864-FPS), filed on September 29, 2004.
4
Private Civil Actions Alleging Improper Use of Fair Value Pricing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple civil class action lawsuits have been filed against various parties
(including, depending on the lawsuit, certain AIM Funds, IFG and/or AIM)
alleging that certain AIM Funds inadequately employed fair value pricing. These
lawsuits allege a variety of theories of recovery, including but not limited
to: (i) violations of various provisions of the Federal securities laws; (ii)
common law breach of duty; and (iii) common law negligence and gross
negligence. These lawsuits have been filed in both Federal and state courts and
seek such remedies as compensatory and punitive damages; interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs. The list below identifies such lawsuits that have
been served on IFG, AIM, the AIM Funds or related entities, or for which
service of process has been waived, as of August 19, 2005.
o T.K. PARTHASARATHY, ET AL, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. T. ROWE PRICE INTERNATIONAL FUNDS, INC., ET AL., in
the Third Judicial Circuit Court for Madison County, Illinois (Case No.
2003-L-001253), filed on September 23, 2003. The Third Judicial Circuit
Court for Madison County, Illinois has issued an order severing the claims
of plaintiff Parthasarathy from the claims of the other plaintiffs against
AIM and other defendants. As a result, AIM is a defendant in the following
severed action: EDMUND WOODBURY, STUART ALLEN SMITH and SHARON SMITH,
Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. AIM
INTERNATIONAL FUNDS, INC., ET AL., in the Third Judicial Circuit Court for
Madison County, Illinois (Case No. 03-L-1253A). The claims made by
plaintiffs and the relief sought in the Woodbury lawsuit are identical to
those in the Parthasarathy lawsuit. On April 22,2005, the defendants in
the Woodbury lawsuit removed the action to Federal Court (U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Illinois, Case No. 05-CV-302-DRH). Based on a
recent Federal appellate court decision (the "Kircher" case), AIM and the
other defendants in the Woodbury lawsuit removed the action to Federal
court (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, Cause No.
05-CV-302-DRH) on April 22, 2005. On April 26, 2005, AIM and the other
defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs' state law based
claims. On June 10, 2005, the Court dismissed the Woodbury lawsuit based
upon the Kircher ruling and ordered the court clerk to close this case.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Judgment arguing that the Kircher
ruling does not apply to require the dismissal of the claims against AIM
in the Woodbury lawsuit. On July 7, 2005, the Court denied this Motion.
o JOHN BILSKI, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,
v. AIM INTERNATIONAL FUNDS, INC., ET AL., in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis) (Case No. 03-772),
filed on November 19, 2003. This lawsuit has been transferred to the MDL
Court by order of the United States District Court, Southern District of
Illinois (East St. Louis).
Private Civil Actions Alleging Excessive Advisory and/or Distribution Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple civil lawsuits, including purported class action and shareholder
derivative suits, have been filed against various parties (including, depending
on the lawsuit, IFG, AIM, INVESCO Institutional (N.A.), Inc. ("IINA"), ADI
and/or INVESCO Distributors, Inc. ("INVESCO Distributors")) alleging that the
defendants charged excessive advisory and/or distribution fees and failed to
pass on to shareholders the perceived savings generated by economies of scale.
Certain of these lawsuits also allege that the defendants adopted unlawful
distribution plans. These lawsuits allege a variety of theories of recovery,
including but not limited to: (i) violation of various provisions of the
Federal securities laws; (ii) breach
5
of fiduciary duty; and/or (iii) breach of contract. These lawsuits have been
filed in Federal courts and seek such remedies as damages; injunctive relief;
rescission of certain Funds' advisory agreements and distribution plans;
interest; prospective relief in the form of reduced fees; and attorneys' and
experts' fees. The list below identifies such lawsuits that have been served on
IFG, AIM, the AIM Funds or related entities, or for which service of process
has been waived, as of August 19, 2005.
All of the lawsuits discussed below have been transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division by order of
the applicable United States District Court in which they were initially filed.
By order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, the Kondracki and Papia lawsuits discussed below have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes into the Berdat lawsuit discussed
below and administratively closed.
o RONALD KONDRACKI v. AIM ADVISORS, INC. AND AIM DISTRIBUTOR, INC., in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (Civil
Action No. 04-CV- 263-DRH), filed on April 16, 2004.
o DOLORES BERDAT, ET AL. v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL., in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division
(Case No. 8:04-CV-978-T24-TBM), filed on April 29, 2004.
o FERDINANDO PAPIA, ET AL. v. A I M ADVISORS, INC. AND A I M DISTRIBUTORS,
INC., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division (Case No. 8:04-CV-977-T17-MSS), filed on April 29,
2004.
Private Civil Actions Alleging Improper Charging of Distribution Fees on
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited Offering Funds or Share Classes
---------------------------------------
Multiple civil lawsuits, including shareholder derivative suits, have been
filed against various parties (including, depending on the lawsuit, IFG, AIM,
ADI and/or certain of the trustees of the AIM Funds) alleging that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by charging distribution fees while
funds and/or specific share classes were closed generally to new investors
and/or while other share classes of the same fund were not charged the same
distribution fees. These lawsuits allege a variety of theories of recovery,
including but not limited to: (i) violation of various provisions of the
Federal securities laws; and (ii) breach of fiduciary duty. These lawsuits have
been filed in Federal courts and seek such remedies as damages; injunctive
relief; and attorneys' and experts' fees. The list below identifies such
lawsuits that have been served on IFG, AIM, the AIM Funds or related entities,
or for which service of process has been waived, as of August 19, 2005.
By order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, the Lieber lawsuit discussed below has been
consolidated for pre-trial purposes into the Zucker lawsuit discussed below and
administratively closed.
o LAWRENCE ZUCKER, On Behalf Of AIM SMALL CAP GROWTH FUND and AIM LIMITED
MATURITY TREASURY FUND, v. A I M ADVISORS, INC., in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Civil Action
No. H-03-5653), filed on December 10, 2003. In March 2005, the parties
entered a Stipulation whereby, among other things, the Plaintiff agreed to
dismiss without prejudice all claims against all of the individual
defendants and his claims based on state law causes of action. This
effectively limits this case to alleged violations of Section 36(b)
against ADI.
6
o STANLEY LIEBER, On Behalf Of INVESCO BALANCED FUND, ET AL., v. INVESCO
FUNDS GROUP, INC. AND A I M ADVISORS, INC., in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Civil Action No.
H-03-5744), filed on December 17, 2003. In March 2005, the parties entered
a Stipulation whereby, among other things, the Plaintiff agreed to dismiss
without prejudice all claims against all of the individual defendants and
his claims based on state law causes of action. This effectively limits
this case to alleged violations of Section 36(b) against ADI.
o HERMAN C. RAGAN, Derivatively, And On Behalf Of Himself And All Others
Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC. AND A I M DISTRIBUTORS,
INC., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia, Dublin Division (Civil Action No. CV304-031), filed on May 6,
2004.
Private Civil Actions Alleging Improper Mutual Fund Sales Practices and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Directed-Brokerage Arrangements
-------------------------------
Multiple civil lawsuits, including purported class action and shareholder
derivative suits, have been filed against various parties (including, depending
on the lawsuit, AIM Management, IFG, AIM, AIM Investment Services, Inc. ("AIS")
and/or certain of the trustees of the AIM Funds) alleging that the defendants
improperly used the assets of the AIM Funds to pay brokers to aggressively
promote the sale of the AIM Funds over other mutual funds and that the
defendants concealed such payments from investors by disguising them as
brokerage commissions. These lawsuits allege a variety of theories of recovery,
including but not limited to: (i) violation of various provisions of the
Federal securities laws; (ii) breach of fiduciary duty; and (iii) aiding and
abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. These lawsuits have been filed in Federal
courts and seek such remedies as compensatory and punitive damages; rescission
of certain Funds' advisory agreements and distribution plans and recovery of
all fees paid; an accounting of all fund-related fees, commissions and soft
dollar payments; restitution of all unlawfully or discriminatorily obtained
fees and charges; and attorneys' and experts' fees. The list below identifies
such lawsuits that have been served on IFG, AIM, the AIM Funds or related
entities, or for which service of process has been waived, as of August 19,
2005.
By order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, the claims made in the Beasley, Kehlbeck Trust, Fry,
Apu and Bendix lawsuits discussed below were consolidated into the Boyce
lawsuit discussed below and these other lawsuits were administratively closed.
On June 7, 2005, plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint in which
they make substantially identical allegations to those of the individual
underlying lawsuits. However, the City of Chicago Deferred Compensation Plan
has been joined as an additional plaintiff in the Consolidated Amended
Complaint. Plaintiffs added defendants, including current and former
directors/trustees of the AIM Funds formerly advised by IFG.
o JOY D. BEASLEY and SHEILA McDAID, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. AIM MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 04-B-0958),
filed on May 10, 2004. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case in
Colorado and re-filed it on July 2, 2004 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Civil Action
H-04-2589).
7
| EX-99.77E LEGAL | Last Page of 8 | TOC | 1st | Previous | Next | ↓Bottom | Just 8th |
|---|
o RICHARD TIM BOYCE v. AIM MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., ET AL., in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado (Civil Action No.
04-N-0989), filed on May 13, 2004. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
this case in Colorado and re-filed it on July 1, 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Civil
Action H-04-2587).
o KEHLBECK TRUST DTD 1-25-93, BILLY B. KEHLBECK AND DONNA J. KEHLBECK, TTEES
v. AIM MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., ET AL., in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Civil Action No.
H-04-2802), filed on July 9, 2004.
o JANICE R. FRY, ET AL. v. AIM MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., ET AL., in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
(Civil Action No. H-04-2832), filed on July 12, 2004.
o ROBERT P. APU, ET AL. v. AIM MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., ET AL., in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
(Civil Action No. H-04-2884), filed on July 15, 2004.
o HARVEY R. BENDIX, ET AL. v. AIM MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., ET AL., in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division (Civil Action No. H-04-3030), filed on July 27, 2004.
Private Civil Action Alleging Failure to Ensure Participation in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settlements
-----------
A civil lawsuit, purporting to be a class action lawsuit, has been filed
against AIM, IINA, A I M Capital Management, Inc. ("AIM Capital") and the
trustees of the AIM Funds alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to ensure that the AIM Funds participated in class action
settlements in which the AIM Funds were eligible to participate. This lawsuit
alleges as theories of recovery: (i) violation of various provisions of the
Federal securities laws; (ii) common law breach of fiduciary duty; and (iii)
common law negligence. This lawsuit has been filed in Federal court and seeks
such remedies as compensatory and punitive damages; forfeiture of all
commissions and fees paid by the class of plaintiffs; and costs and attorneys'
fees. This lawsuit was dismissed by the Court on August 12, 2005:
o AVO HOGAN and JULIAN W. MEADOWS, On Behalf Of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, v. BOB R. BAKER, ET AL., in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-73-P), filed
on January 11, 2005.
More detailed information regarding each of the civil lawsuits identified
above, including the parties to the lawsuits and summaries of the various
allegations and remedies sought, can be found in the Fund's statement of
additional information.
As a result of the matters discussed above, investors in the AIM Funds might
react by redeeming their investments. This might require the Funds to sell
investments to provide for sufficient liquidity and could also have an adverse
effect on the investment performance of the Funds.
8
Dates Referenced Herein and Documents Incorporated by Reference
| Referenced-On Page |
|---|
| This ‘NSAR-A’ Filing | | Date | | First | | Last | | | Other Filings |
|---|
| |  |
| Filed on / Effective on: | | 8/29/05 |
| | 8/19/05 | | 2 | | 7 |
| | 8/12/05 | | 8 |
| | 7/21/05 | | 4 |
| | 7/7/05 | | 2 | | 5 |
| For Period end: | | 6/30/05 | | | | | | | N-CSRS, N-PX |
| | 6/29/05 | | 2 |
| | 6/13/05 | | 1 |
| | 6/10/05 | | 5 |
| | 6/7/05 | | 7 |
| | 5/31/05 | | 1 |
| | 4/26/05 | | 5 |
| | 4/22/05 | | 5 |
| | 4/12/05 | | 1 |
| | 1/11/05 | | 8 |
| | 10/8/04 | | 1 |
| | 9/29/04 | | 4 |
| | 7/27/04 | | 8 |
| | 7/15/04 | | 8 |
| | 7/12/04 | | 8 |
| | 7/9/04 | | 8 |
| | 7/2/04 | | 7 |
| | 7/1/04 | | 8 |
| | 5/13/04 | | 8 |
| | 5/10/04 | | 7 |
| | 5/6/04 | | 7 |
| | 4/29/04 | | 6 | | | | | 497 |
| | 4/16/04 | | 6 |
| | 3/29/04 | | 4 |
| | 3/4/04 | | 4 |
| | 2/5/04 | | 4 |
| | 2/3/04 | | 3 |
| | 1/30/04 | | 3 |
| | 1/28/04 | | 3 |
| | 1/21/04 | | 3 |
| | 12/24/03 | | 3 |
| | 12/18/03 | | 3 |
| | 12/17/03 | | 2 | | 7 |
| | 12/10/03 | | 6 | | | | | 497 |
| | 12/5/03 | | 3 | | | | | 497 |
| | 12/4/03 | | 2 | | 3 |
| | 12/2/03 | | 2 |
| | 11/28/03 | | 2 |
| | 11/19/03 | | 5 |
| | 11/14/03 | | 2 |
| | 10/22/03 | | 2 | | | | | 497 |
| | 10/2/03 | | 2 | | | | | DEFA14A |
| | 9/23/03 | | 5 |
| List all Filings |
↑Top
Filing Submission 0000950129-05-008809 – Alternative Formats (Word / Rich Text, HTML, Plain Text, et al.)
Copyright © 2024 Fran Finnegan & Company LLC – All Rights Reserved.
About — Privacy — Redactions — Help —
Mon., May 13, 1:31:05.2pm ET 