ADVO, Inc.
(NYSE:AD)
A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of ADVO, Inc. ("ADVO")
(NYSE:AD) common stock during the period between July 6, 2006 and August 30,
2006 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges ADVO and certain of its officers and directors with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ADVO is a direct mail media company
that engages in soliciting and processing printed advertising from retailers,
manufacturers, and service companies in the United States and Canada.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial
results, concealing material adverse problems in ADVO's long-term financial
health and intrinsic value. Defendants concealed this information in order to
accomplish a merger which the Company had entered into with Valassis Communications,
Inc. ("Valassis"), a leading company in marketing services, to create
the largest integrated media services provider in the nation. Valassis was acquiring
all of ADVO's outstanding common stock in an all cash transaction. As a result
of defendants' false statements, investors believed the acquisition would occur,
causing ADVO's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, reaching a high of $36.80 per share in August 2006. Then, on August
30, 2006, Valassis announced that it had filed an action to rescind its merger
agreement with ADVO. On this news, the Company's shares fell to $28.59 per share.
According to the complaint, to accomplish the merger, ADVO officers and employees
concealed material information, including that: (a) its business had deteriorated
so badly that it would never be replaced; (b) its financial internal controls
were woefully inadequate; and (c) its business was not as nearly successful
as the market and Valassis had been led to believe.
AEGON USA, Inc
(AEU)
A class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons who, from October 1, 1998 through
October 1, 2001, inclusive ("Class Period"), purchased or otherwise
acquired an individual tax-deferred variable annuity contract or who received
a certificate to a group tax-deferred variable annuity contract, or who made
an additional investment through such a contract, issued by any of the defendants
herein, which was used to fund a contributory retirement plan or arrangement
qualified for favorable tax treatment pursuant to sections 401, 403, 408, 408A
or 457 of the Internal Revenue Code (the "Class"). The defendants
are AEGON USA, Inc. and six of its subsidiaries/affiliates, Western Reserve
Life Assurance Co. of Ohio; PFL Life Insurance Company; AUSA Life Insurance
Company, Inc.; Bankers United Life Assurance Company; AFSG Securities Corporation
and AEGON Financial Services Group, Inc.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933
by making material misstatements and omissions, in their selling documents including
prospectuses, which caused plaintiffs and other members of the Class to purchase
the variable annuity contracts. The tax-deferred variable annuities sold by
defendants are virtually never suitable investments for tax-deferred retirement
accounts because earnings on any such annuity placed in such a retirement plan
are already tax-deferred, and purchase of a deferred annuity increases costs
without any material, additional economic benefit.
Allot Communications Ltd.
(NASDAQ: ALLT)
A securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders
of Allot Communications Ltd. ("Allot" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ALLT) who purchased shares of Allot in connection with its November
15, 2006 Initial Public Offering ("IPO") or who purchased shares thereafter
in the open market. The action seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing
a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Allot.
American Tower Corporation
(NYSE: AMT)
A class action complaint, as amended, in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all who purchased shares and/or
sold put contracts of American Tower Corporation (NYSE: AMT) ("American
Tower" or the "Company") between February 1, 2006 through May
24, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit alleges that American Tower and two of its officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act").
American Tower is a wireless and broadcast communications infrastructure company
that is located in Boston, Massachusetts.
According to the amended complaint, the defendants allegedly made materially
false and misleading statements about American Tower's financial results during
the Class Period, that were in Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
filings, causing American Tower to trade at artificially inflated prices. In
particular, the complaint states that defendants allegedly failed to disclose
that: (a) insiders of the Company were engaged in self-dealing involving the
backdating of options granted to them to receive a favorable price; and (b)
the Company misstated its earnings and expenses as a result of option backdating.
In addition, the amended complaint alleges that the defendants falsely stated
that they had complied with the reporting requirements of the SEC and United
States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
As an alleged result of the above-mentioned alleged fraudulent activities, shares
of American Tower dropped from $34.76 on May 11, 2006 to $30.30 on May 24, 2006.
Apollo Group Inc.
(NASDAQ: APOL)
A class action complaint, as amended, in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all who purchased shares and/or
sold put contracts of American Tower Corporation (NYSE: AMT) ("American
Tower" or the "Company") between February 1, 2006 through May
24, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit alleges that American Tower and two of its officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act").
American Tower is a wireless and broadcast communications infrastructure company
that is located in Boston, Massachusetts.
According to the amended complaint, the defendants allegedly made materially
false and misleading statements about American Tower's financial results during
the Class Period, that were in Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
filings, causing American Tower to trade at artificially inflated prices. In
particular, the complaint states that defendants allegedly failed to disclose
that: (a) insiders of the Company were engaged in self-dealing involving the
backdating of options granted to them to receive a favorable price; and (b)
the Company misstated its earnings and expenses as a result of option backdating.
In addition, the amended complaint alleges that the defendants falsely stated
that they had complied with the reporting requirements of the SEC and United
States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
As an alleged result of the above-mentioned alleged fraudulent activities, shares
of American Tower dropped from $34.76 on May 11, 2006 to $30.30 on May 24, 2006.
Apple Computer, Inc.
(NASDAQ: AAPL)
A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds against Apollo Group Inc. ("Apollo"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APOL) and certain key officers and/or directors
in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. This action
has been brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Apollo
securities during the period between November 28, 2001 and October 18, 2006
(the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements to artificially
inflate the value of Apollo stock. Specifically, it is alleged that throughout
the Class Period, the defendants represented to the Class that it issued stock
options to management in accordance with all applicable laws and rules while,
in fact, it "backdated" options granted to all levels of management.
On June 9, 2006, in the midst of a nation-wide options scandal in connection
with the backdating of options, Apollo announced that it had performed a review
of its stock option practices during fiscal 2000-2004 and initially concluded
that it had "complied with all applicable laws," and it would hire
an outside firm to review those conclusions. The Company flatly denied that
it had backdated options. These statements were false and misleading when made
because the defendants failed to disclose or indicate that they knew that the
option grant process was deficient and could cause the Company to restate its
financial statements.
The Company shocked the investing public when, on October 18, 2006, it disclosed
that on June 23, 2006 the Company's Board of Directors appointed a special committee
of two independent Board members to oversee the investigation of Apollo's stock
option grant practices. Further, it was disclosed that the independent outside
counsel retained by the special committee had themselves engaged independent
accounting advisors to assist in the investigation. In addition, the Company
for the first time disclosed that "[v]arious deficiencies in the process
of granting and documenting stock options have been identified to date."
Finally, and most unfortunately for Apollo shareholders, the Company disclosed
for the first time that "[t]he accounting impact of these matters has not
been quantified. There can be no assurance that the results of the investigation
will not require a possible restatement of the Company's financial statements
when the potential errors are quantified and assessed."
The market reacted quickly to these announcements. Apollo's stock price plummeted
to $37.55 per share from its prior day close of $48.68 per share, a 22.86% drop
in one day, on massive volume of 28,738,800 shares, more than fifteen times
more than the prior day's volume.
Arotech Corp.
(NASDAQ: ARTX)
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or acquired
the common stock of Arotech Corp. ("Arotech" or the "Company'')
(NASDAQ: ARTX) between March 31, 2005 and November 14, 2005 (the "Class
Period").
Arotech and certain of its officers and directors are charged with issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Throughout the Class Period, Arotech conditioned investors to believe that the
Company was meeting or exceeding guidance and could foreseeably achieve sustained
year-over-year quarterly revenue growth as high as 40%.
Unbeknownst to investors, however, throughout the Class Period, Arotech suffered
from a host of adverse conditions that negatively impacted its business and
caused the Company to fail to maintain its financial statements and reports
in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules, including, that: (1) the integration
of Armour of America, acquired by Arotech in August 2004 for approximately $22
million, was not proceeding according to plan; (2) profitability was overstated
as a result of defendants' failure to write-down impaired assets and record
rising impairment costs; and (3) defendants failed to maintain an adequate system
of internal operational or financial controls necessary to operate the Company.
It was only on November 14, 2005 -- only weeks after defendants completed a
$17 million offering of debt convertible into shares of Company stock -- that
investors learned the truth about the Company. At that time, defendants belatedly
disclosed that Arotech was operating well below plan and that it would be forced
to take significant asset impairment charges. As a result of these disclosures,
the following day, shares of the Company declined almost 27% in very heavy trading
volume.
Aspen Technology Inc.
(Nasdaq:AZPN)
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and other
securities of Aspen Technology Inc. ("Aspen Tech" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:AZPN) who purchased during the period from February 6, 2006 through
September 6, 2006 (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that Aspen Tech and certain of its officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements
and omissions concerning the backdating of the grant of stock options to management,
and the falsification of its financial statements for the years 2002-2005 and
the first three quarters of 2006. The Company had been previously forced to
restate its financial statements for the years 2002-2004 in 2005, and the investing
public was led to understand such accounting issues were resolved. The practice
of manipulating stock option dates not only potentially lines the pockets of
the executives, but here resulted in the overstatement of Aspen Tech's earnings
between 2002 and 2005, and the under-booking of compensation expenses. Under
accounting rules, back-dating an option grant is deemed the payment of additional
compensation and must be accounted for as an expense, which Aspen Tech failed
to do.
On September 6, 2006, the defendants shocked the market by announcing that the
Company would be forced to restate its financial statements to correct for the
backdating of stock options, by booking approximately $31 million of additional
compensation charges. On this news the Company's share prices declined substantially
on greatly increased share volume.
Atlas Mining Company
(OTCBB: ALMI)
A class action lawsuit was filed against Atlas Mining Company ("Atlas"
or the "Company") (OTCBB: ALMI) on behalf of investors that purchased
Atlas stock during the period from March 31, 2005 through and including October
9, 2007.
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho as case no. 07-428. You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk
of court or you may contact counsel for plaintiffs Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com
The complaint charges that Atlas and certain of its officers and directors violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially
false and misleading financial statements filed with the SEC during the Class
Period by overstating the Company's revenue and assets.
On October 9, 2007, the Company announced that it would have to restate its
financial statements for each of the reporting periods from 2004 through the
current fiscal quarter as a result of improper revenue recognition practices
and other violations of generally accepted accounting principles. In addition,
Atlas announced it was suspending all activities at its Dragon Mine pending
a review. These announcements caused Atlas' stock price to immediately drop
by half -- causing investors substantial losses.
BigBand Networks, Inc.
(NASDAQ: BBND)
On October 3, 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against BigBand Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: BBND). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations and false statements with respect to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's IPO. The class period includes all shareholders who purchased common stock in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on or about March 15, 2007, or those who purchased shares thereafter in the open market.
Bioenvision, Inc.
(NASDAQ:BIVN)
On July 13, 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Bioenvision, Inc. (NASDAQ:BIVN).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations
of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from
May 1, 2007 through May 28, 2007.
Biotech AG
(NASDAQ: GPCB)
A securities fraud class action was filed against GPC Biotech AG (NASDAQ:
GPCB) ("GPC" or the "Company") and certain of its executive
officers, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
GPC securities between December 5, 2005, and July 24, 2007, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
According to the complaint, GPC and the other defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, the defendants made a series of materially false and misleading misrepresentations
and omissions about the Company's operations, financial condition, and business
prospects, including those concerning the prospects for FDA approval of GPC's
leading drug candidate, Satraplatin (a treatment for advanced prostate cancer),
thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities during
the Class Period.
BKF Capital Group
(Pink Sheets:BKFG)
A lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of BKF Capital Group ("BKF"
or the "Company") (Pink Sheets:BKFG) between May 10, 2004 and October
18, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that BKF and certain of its officers and directors violated
Federal Securities laws by issuing a series of false and misleading statements
concerning the Company. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
failed to properly account for their restricted stock units. As a result of
Defendants' failure to properly account for these restricted stock units, the
Company's financial statements and reports were not prepared in accordance with
GAAP and SEC rules and did not represent the true financial and operational
condition of the Company.
On or about October 18, 2005, Defendants revealed that BKF's financial reports
were not reliable and that the financial reports dating back to the beginning
of 2004 would need to be restated. These disclosures caused the price of BKF
shares to decline over $7.40 per share in one day, falling over 30%, and closing
at just above $17.00 per share.
Broadcom Corporation's securities
(Nasdaq:BRCM)
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division on behalf of purchasers (the
"Class") of Broadcom Corporation's securities ("Broadcom"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:BRCM) between July 21, 2005 and July 13,
2006, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Defendants include: Broadcom, Henry Samueli, Scott A. McGregor, William J. Ruehle
and Bruce E. Kiddoo. The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5) promulgated
thereunder.
On July 14, 2006, Broadcom announced that it would record more than $750 million
in added expenses and restate its past earnings related to the illegal backdating
of stock options. Options pricing backdating occurs when options grants to senior
officers or directors of public companies are made at prices lower than the
trading price of the stock on the date such options are granted. The undisclosed
backdating of options violates generally accepted accounting principles. The
revelation of options backdating resulted in a precipitous decline in Broadcom's
share price.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is represented
by the Braun Law Group, P.C. a firm with significant experience in prosecuting
class actions.
If you are a member of the class described above, you may, no later than October
12, 2006, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff, if you so choose. In order
to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements.
If you are interested in becoming a lead plaintiff or have any questions regarding
this lawsuit or your rights, please visit our firm website at www.braunlawgroup.com
or contact Michael D. Braun at info@braunlawgroup.com or 310-442-7755.
Brooks Automation, Inc.
(NASDAQ: BRKS)
A class action suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Brooks Automation, Inc. ( Brooks or the Company
)(NASDAQ: BRKS) and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Brooks between July 25, 2001 and May 22, 2006, inclusive (the
Class Period ).
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, thus causing
Brooks's shares to trade at artificially inflated prices.
In particular, the Complaint alleges that on March 18, 2006, The Wall Street
Journal published a story titled "The Perfect Payday -Some CEOs reap millions
by landing stock options when they are most valuable; Luck - or something else?"
that identified Brooks as one of several companies "with wildly improbable
option-grant patterns." On April 26, 2006, Brooks disclosed that its Board
of Directors created a special committee to conduct an internal review of matters
related to past stock option grants, including the timing of such grants and
associated documentation.
The Complaint further alleges that on May 11, 2006, Brooks issued a press release
titled "Brooks Automation to Restate Past Periods Related to Certain Stock
Option Grants," that stated, in part, that "the Company will be required
to correct certain SEC filings, including particularly its financial statements
contained in filings for some or all of the periods commencing in fiscal 1999
and ending in fiscal 2005." Brooks further stated that "the Company
believes that it accounted for certain matters concerning stock options incorrectly,
and as a result recognized less compensation expense than it should have in
periods prior to fiscal 2006." On May 18, 2006, Amin J. Khoury and Roger
D. Emerick reportedly resigned from the Company's Board of Directors.
The Complaint also alleges that the Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting
an informal inquiry concerning stock option grant practices to determine whether
violations of the federal securities laws have occurred and Brooks has allegedly
received a grand jury document subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of New York requesting records pertaining to the granting of stock
options.
The Complaint further alleges that during the Class Period, certain Company
insiders sold approximately 320,000 Brooks shares at artificially inflates prices
for proceeds of approximately $6.4 million.
It is alleged that, as a result of the Company's recent disclosures, that since
March 20, 2006, the first trading day after the above-noted Wall Street Journal
article of March 18, 2006, shares of Brooks have declined from $13.88 per share
at the opening of trading on March 20, 2006, to close at $12 per share at the
close of trading on May 23, 2006, a decline of $1.88 per share, or approximately
14%.
Investors in a class action on behalf of all persons for whom Campbell Cowperthwaite,
through its Large Cap Growth management team, managed plaintiff's and class
members' assets through Prudential Securities Managed Assets Consulting Services
("MACS") program from January 29, 2000 through September 30, 2001,
won a significant victory on August 22, 2006 when Justice Richard B. Lowe III
of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County denied U.S. Trust's
motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff's and the Class's claims for breach of fiduciary duty allege that
defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to plaintiff and the Class by
failing to properly manage and oversee the assets of the investment accounts;
failing to pursue a prudent investment strategy; and over-concentrating the
portfolio in certain volatile industry sectors and stocks and by failing to
eliminate conflicts of interest. Plaintiff has also alleged that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties because defendants' selection, monitoring and
continuation of investment strategies and alternatives were negligently planned,
performed and monitored. The action seeks recovery of money damages on behalf
of the Class representing the amount of money that they lost as a result of
the defendants' breach of fiduciary duty during the Class Period.
The Court has certified this Action to proceed as a class action pursuant to
Article 9 of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules of the State of New York. However,
the prosecution of the action (including the forwarding of notice to class members)
has been stayed by the Court pending the outcome of U.S. Trust's appeal of the
Court's decision to grant class certification.
Care Investment Trust Inc.
(NYSE: CRE)
A class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the common
stock of Care Investment Trust Inc. ("Care Investment" or the "Company")
(NYSE: CRE) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
on or about June 22, 2007 (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company, and certain
of its officers and directors, violated federal securities laws by issuing various
materially false and misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and causing Class members
to overpay for the securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. If you are a member of
the proposed Class, you may, no later than November 19, 2007, ask the Court
to allow you to serve as lead plaintiff for the proposed Class. To serve as
a lead plaintiff, you must satisfy certain legal requirements. In making your
decision, you should take into account that those with large financial losses
resulting from the alleged federal securities law violations are given preference
in being appointed lead plaintiff.
Celestica Inc.
(NYSE:CLS)
A class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Celestica Inc.
("Celestica" or the "Company") (NYSE:CLS) securities during
the period between July 27, 2006 and December 12, 2006, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
The complaint charges Celestica and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Celestica provides electronic
manufacturing services to original equipment manufacturers in the computing,
telecommunications, aerospace and defense, automotive, consumer electronics,
and industrial sectors in Asia, the Americas, and Europe.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous
statements describing the Company's financial performance and future prospects,
which they attributed, in part, to success of the Company's restructuring activities
and improvements in the Mexican and European operations. The complaint alleges
that these statements were materially false and misleading when made because
defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others: (i) that the Company was experiencing declining demand in its
Mexican operations and that division was carrying significant amounts of unneeded
inventory which would have to be written off; (ii) that the Company was experiencing
declining demand in its Information Technology ("IT") and communications
market segments as its larger customers scaled back purchases; and (iii) as
a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable basis to project adjusted
earnings per share ranging from $0.12 to $0.20. When this undisclosed information
later became public, shares of Celestica common stock declined.
Centene Corp.
(NYSE: CNC)
A class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Centene Corp. ("Centene" or the "Company") (NYSE: CNC) from June 21, 2006 through July 17, 2006 (the "Class Period"). Defendants include Centene and certain of its top officers and directors.
The complaint alleges that Centene and certain officers and directors violated
the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions
assuring the investing public that Centene had its costs under control, when
it did not. Centene is a healthcare enterprise which operates health plans in
Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Texas and additional states. During the Class Period,
the Company assured investors that its costs were under control, and that the
only market where there was any concern related to pharmacy costs in Indiana
and to a limited degree Ohio. The defendants reported that cost trends were
improving in Indiana and Ohio. In June 2006, defendants reaffirmed that there
were no surprises. Thereafter in late June 2006, Goldman Sachs announced that
based on its discussions with Centene, its management had strong confidence
in its guidance for the second quarter of 2006 and for the remainder of 2006,
and that cost trend issues remained manageable.
Then on July 18, 2006 defendants shocked the market by announcing that 2006
second quarter results would be far below prior guidance, and results for the
remainder of 2006 would not meet guidance, as well. The huge shortfall was caused
by additional medical costs incurred in Indiana and Texas. As a result, Centene
shares dropped from $21.04 to $13.44, wiping out millions in shareholder value.
If you purchased Centene securities during the Class Period, you may qualify
to serve as Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the Class, which consists of all persons
and entities who purchased Centene stock from June 21, 2006 through July 17,
2006. You are not required to have sold your Centene stock in order to claim
damages, or to serve in this role. All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff
must be filed with the Court no later than October 2, 2006.
China Energy Savings Technology,
Inc.
(Nasdaq: CESV)
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of herself and a class of non-management stockholders
who purchased stock in China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. ("China Energy"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CESV) during the period from April 21,
2005 through February 15, 2006, inclusive(the "Class Period")(the
"Class"). The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the Company's financial performance,
including with regard to the Company's recent $50 million private placement.
As a result, the price of the Company's securities was inflated during the Class
Period.
The complaint alleges, that on January 17, 2006, the Company announced an underwriting
agreement to raise $50 million through a private placement of Company stock.
The very same day, China Energy announced that defendant Sun Li resigned as
Chairman and CEO of the Company and immediately appointed defendant Kwun Luen
Siu to replace him. The Company did not disclose that, in fact, the $50 million
private placement was a case of massive self-dealing -- over 6 million of the
shares to be sold were indirectly owned by defendant Li.
Moreover, defendants did not disclose that defendant Li had recommended defendant
Siu as his replacement and that, prior to being vetted by defendant Li for the
role of China Energy CEO, defendant Siu had played an active role in facilitating
defendants' self-dealing. According to the complaint, prior to the announcement
of the Company's $50 million private placement, defendant Siu introduced the
investment group that would underwrite the Company's $50 million private placement
offering to defendant Li and the Company.
The lawsuit also charges that during the Class Period insiders sold their Company
stock at artificially inflated prices, thereby reaping more than $114 million
in proceeds.
Choice Hotels
(CHA)
The class actions are pending in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado against Choice Hotels and certain of its officers and directors
and allege that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Choice Hotels between
April 25, 2006 and July 26, 2006,.
The complaints charge Choice Hotels and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
complaints allege that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them: (1) that new hotel franchise contracts sharply declined
to the point where the Company was not meeting internal expectations; (2) as
such, Choice Hotels had no choice but to report slowing growth in this key business
segment; (3) that Choice Hotels was experiencing declining growth in its conversion
of hotels to its system; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements
about its financial strength and operating condition were lacking in any reasonable
basis when made.
The complaints allege that prior to and throughout the Class Period, Choice
Hotels represented to investors that the Company's business model was going
to continue to deliver strong revenue and earnings growth to investors. One
of the main tenets of this plan was the franchising of hotels, and converting
newly acquired hotels into the Choice Hotels' system.
However, on July 25, 2006, after the market had closed for the day, the Company
shocked investors when it revealed that, contrary to earlier representations,
the Company was unable to sign nearly as many franchise agreements as it projected
that it would. The Company further revealed that it was also unable to successfully
integrate newly acquired hotels into the Choice Hotels' system as planned.
In reaction to this news, the price of Choice Hotel's stock fell dramatically,
falling $14.65 per share, or 24.89 %, from its closing price of $58.85 on July
25, 2006, the previous trading day, to close at $44.20 per share on July 26,
2006, on unusual heavy trading volume.
Coast Financial Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ: CFHI)
A securities class action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders who
acquired Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CFHI) securities between October
28, 2005 and January 19, 2007, inclusive (the Class Period).
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, against the company and certain key officers and directors.
The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout
the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.
(CCE)
A securities fraud class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. ("CCE"), Lowry F. Kline, John R. Alm, Patrick J. Mannelly, Rick L. Engum, E. Liston Bishop, III, G. David Van Houten, Jr. and Summerfield K. Johnston, Jr. The case was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired CCE stock between October 15, 2003 and July 28, 2004 (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby. The case is pending before the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash and is entitled Argento Trading Company, L.P. v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. et al., No. 1:06-cv-00275 (TWT). A copy of the complaint can be obtained from the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, 75 Spring Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303 or from counsel for the Plaintiff, Meryl W. Edelstein, Esq. at medelstein@chitwoodlaw.com or at the address or phone numbers provided below.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and
20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose to the investing public
that CCE had a longstanding and systemic practice of channel stuffing -- forcing
extra product onto its customers to boost revenue. CCE's reported financial
results and future earnings prospects were materially misleading without disclosure
about CCE's channel stuffing practices and how those practices affected CCE's
financial condition. The complaint also alleges that CCE's channel stuffing
resulted in the improper recognition of revenue in violation of GAAP.
While defendants were misrepresenting CCE's financial condition, and CCE's stock
price climbed through the Class Period, the individual defendants engaged in
substantial insider trading. For example, Defendant Johnston sold over $172
million worth of his CCE stock, representing 19.52% of his holdings or 6,481,082
shares. Defendant Mannelly sold approximately 372,396 shares of his CCE common
stock, with proceeds totaling approximately $9,353,964, and Defendant Van Houten
sold approximately 225,953 shares of CCE common stock, for proceeds totaling
approximately $6,123,757. Other individual defendants sold substantial amounts
of CCE stock as well.
On July 29, 2004, CCE made a partial corrective disclosure regarding CCE's true
financial condition and diminished future earnings prospects. Reacting to CCE's
disclosures, and the individual defendants' insider trading activities, investors
hammered CCE's stock price on record trading volumes. Thus, by the close of
business on July 29, CCE's stock price fell by approximately 25% or $5 per share,
erasing nearly $3.1 billion of CCE's then $12.5 billion market capitalization.
Columbia mutual funds from the
AIG Advisor Group Inc.
(NYSE:AIG)
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all
those who purchased Columbia mutual funds from the AIG Advisor Group (Parent
company is defendant American International Group, Inc. (NYSE:AIG), hereinafter
"AIG" or the "Company") from June 30, 2000 through June
8, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
During the Class Period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of the following broker-dealers:
Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra
Securities Corporation, Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.
The Columbia mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows:
Columbia Acorn (NASDAQ:LACAX)(NASDAQ:LACBX)(NASDAQ:LIACX)
(NASDAQ:ACRNX)
Columbia Acorn International (NASDAQ:LAIAX)(NASDAQ:LIABX)
(NASDAQ:LAICX)(NASDAQ:ACINX)
Columbia Acorn International Select (NASDAQ:LAFAX)(NASDAQ:LFFBX)
(NASDAQ:LFFCX)(NASDAQ:ACFFX)
Columbia Acorn Select (NASDAQ:LTFAX)(NASDAQ:LTFBX)
(NASDAQ:LTFCX)(NASDAQ:ACTWX)
Columbia Acorn USA (NASDAQ:LAUAX)(NASDAQ:LAUBX)
(NASDAQ:LAUCX)(NASDAQ:AUSAX)
Columbia Asset Allocation (NASDAQ:LAAAX)(NASDAQ:LAABX)
(NASDAQ:LAACX)(NASDAQ:GBAAX)(NASDAQ:GAAAX)(NASDAQ:GAATX)
Columbia Asset Allocation II (NASDAQ:PHAAX)(NASDAQ:NBASX)
(NASDAQ:NAACX)(NASDAQ:NPRAX)
Columbia Balanced (NASDAQ:CBLAX)(NASDAQ:CBLBX)(NASDAQ:CBLCX)
(NASDAQ:CBLDX)(NASDAQ:CBALX)
Columbia CA Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ:NACMX)(NASDAQ:NCMAX)
Columbia CA Tax-Exempt (NASDAQ:CLMPX)(NASDAQ:CCABX)(NASDAQ:CCAOX)
(NASDAQ:CCAZX)
Columbia Common Stock (NASDAQ:LCCAX)(NASDAQ:LCCBX)(NASDAQ:LCCCX)
(NASDAQ:GGRBX)(NASDAQ:SGIEX)(NASDAQ:SMGIX)
Columbia Conservative High Yield (NASDAQ:CHGAX)(NASDAQ:CHGBX)
(NASDAQ:CHDCX)(NASDAQ:CHGDX)(NASDAQ:CMHYX)
Columbia Convertible Securities (NASDAQ:PACIX)(NASDAQ:NCVBX)
(NASDAQ:PHIKX)(NASDAQ:NCIAX)
Columbia Core Bond (NASDAQ:LQPAX)(NASDAQ:LQPBX)(NASDAQ:LQPCX)
(NASDAQ:GBHQX)(NASDAQ:GAHQX)(NASDAQ:GHQTX)
Columbia CT Intermediate Muni Bd (NASDAQ:LCTAX)(NASDAQ:LCTBX)
(NASDAQ:LCTCX)(NASDAQ:GCBBX)(NASDAQ:GCBAX)(NASDAQ:SCTEX)
Columbia CT Tax-Exempt (NASDAQ:COCTX)(NASDAQ:CCTBX)(NASDAQ:CCTCX)
Columbia Disciplined Value (NASDAQ:LEVAX)(NASDAQ:LEVBX)
(NASDAQ:LEVCX)(NASDAQ:GEVBX)(NASDAQ:GALEX)(NASDAQ:GEVTX)
Columbia Dividend Income (NASDAQ:LBSAX)(NASDAQ:LBSBX)(NASDAQ:LBSCX)
(NASDAQ:GEQBX)(NASDAQ:GEQAX)(NASDAQ:GSFTX)
Columbia Federal Securities (NASDAQ:CFSAX)(NASDAQ:CFSOX)
(NASDAQ:CFSCX)(NASDAQ:LFSZX)
Columbia FL Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ:NFIMX)(NASDAQ:NFITX)
(NASDAQ:NFINX)(NASDAQ:NFLBX)
Columbia GA Interm Muni Bond (NASDAQ:NGIMX)(NASDAQ:NGITX)
(NASDAQ:NGINX)(NASDAQ:NGAMX)
Columbia Global Value (NASDAQ:NVVAX)(NASDAQ:NGLBX)(NASDAQ:NCGLX)
(NASDAQ:NVPAX)
Columbia Greater China (NASDAQ:NGCAX)(NASDAQ:NGCBX)(NASDAQ:NGCCX)
(NASDAQ:LNGZX)
Columbia Growth Stock (NASDAQ:CGSAX)(NASDAQ:CGSBX)(NASDAQ:CGSCX)
(NASDAQ:SRFSX)
Columbia High Income (NASDAQ:NAHAX)(NASDAQ:NHYBX)(NASDAQ:NYICX)
(NASDAQ:NYPAX)
Columbia High Yield Municipal (NASDAQ:LHIAX)(NASDAQ:CHMBX)
(NASDAQ:CHMCX)(NASDAQ:SRHMX)
Columbia High Yield Opportunity (NASDAQ:COLHX)(NASDAQ:COHBX)
(NASDAQ:CHYCX)(NASDAQ:LHYZX)
Columbia Income (NASDAQ:LIIAX)(NASDAQ:CIOBX)(NASDAQ:CIOCX)
(NASDAQ:SRINX)
Columbia Intermediate Bond (NASDAQ:LIBAX)(NASDAQ:LIBBX)
(NASDAQ:LIBCX)(NASDAQ:SRBFX)
Columbia Intermediate Core Bond (NASDAQ:PHBAX)(NASDAQ:NTBBX)
(NASDAQ:NTBCX)(NASDAQ:NATAX)
Columbia Intermediate Municipal Bond (NASDAQ:LITAX)(NASDAQ:LITBX)
(NASDAQ:LITCX)(NASDAQ:GIMBX)(NASDAQ:GIMAX)(NASDAQ:SETMX)
Columbia International Stock (NASDAQ:CISAX)(NASDAQ:CISBX)
(NASDAQ:CSKCX)(NASDAQ:CISDX)(NASDAQ:CSKGX)(NASDAQ:CMISX)
Columbia International Value (NASDAQ:NIVLX)(NASDAQ:NBIVX)
(NASDAQ:NVICX)(NASDAQ:EMIEX)
Columbia Large Cap Core (NASDAQ:NSGAX)(NASDAQ:NSIBX)
(NASDAQ:NSGCX)(NASDAQ:NSEPX)
Columbia Large Cap Enhanced Core (NASDAQ:NMIAX)(NASDAQ:NMIMX)
Columbia Large Cap Growth (NASDAQ:LEGAX)(NASDAQ:LEGBX)(NASDAQ:LEGCX)
(NASDAQ:GBEGX)(NASDAQ:GAEGX)(NASDAQ:GEGTX)
Columbia Large Cap Index (NASDAQ:NEIAX)(NASDAQ:CLIBX)(NASDAQ:NINDX)
Columbia Large Cap Value (NASDAQ:NVLEX)(NASDAQ:NVLNX)(NASDAQ:NVALX)
(NASDAQ:NVLUX)
Columbia Liberty (NASDAQ:COLFX)(NASDAQ:CCFBX)(NASDAQ:CTCCX)
(NASDAQ:CTCFX)
Columbia LifeGoal Balanced Grth (NASDAQ:NBIAX)(NASDAQ:NLBBX)
(NASDAQ:NBICX)(NASDAQ:NBGPX)
Columbia LifeGoal Growth (NASDAQ:NLGIX)(NASDAQ:NLGBX)(NASDAQ:NLGCX)
(NASDAQ:NGPAX)
Columbia LifeGoal Income & Grth (NASDAQ:NLGAX)(NASDAQ:NLIBX)
(NASDAQ:NIICX)(NASDAQ:NIPAX)
Columbia LifeGoal Income (NASDAQ:NLFAX)(NASDAQ:NLOBX)(NASDAQ:NLFCX)
Columbia MA Intermediate Muni Bd (NASDAQ:LMIAX)(NASDAQ:LMIBX)
(NASDAQ:LMICX)(NASDAQ:GMBBX)(NASDAQ:GMBAX)(NASDAQ:SEMAX)
Columbia MA Tax-Exempt (NASDAQ:COMAX)(NASDAQ:CMABX)(NASDAQ:COMCX)
Columbia Marsico 21st Century (NASDAQ:NMTAX)(NASDAQ:NMTBX)
(NASDAQ:NMYCX)(NASDAQ:NMYAX)
Columbia Marsico Focused Eq (NASDAQ:NFEAX)(NASDAQ:NFEBX)
(NASDAQ:NFECX)(NASDAQ:NFEPX)
Columbia Marsico Grth (NASDAQ:NMGIX)(NASDAQ:NGIBX)(NASDAQ:NMICX)
(NASDAQ:NGIPX)
Columbia Marsico Intl Opp (NASDAQ:MAIOX)(NASDAQ:MBIOX)(NASDAQ:MCIOX)
(NASDAQ:NMOAX)
Columbia Marsico Mid Cap Growth (NASDAQ:NEGAX)(NASDAQ:NEGNX)
(NASDAQ:NEMGX)(NASDAQ:NEGRX)
Columbia Masters Global Equity (NASDAQ:CMEAX)(NASDAQ:CMEBX)
(NASDAQ:CMECX)(NASDAQ:CMEZX)
Columbia Masters Heritage (NASDAQ:CMHAX)(NASDAQ:CMHBX)(NASDAQ:CMHCX)
(NASDAQ:CMHZX)
Columbia Masters International Equity (NASDAQ:CMTAX)(NASDAQ:CMTBX)
(NASDAQ:CMTCX)(NASDAQ:CMERX)(NASDAQ:CMTZX)
Columbia MD Interm Muni Bond (NASDAQ:NMDMX)(NASDAQ:NMITX)
(NASDAQ:NMINX)(NASDAQ:NMDBX)
Columbia Mid Cap Growth (NASDAQ:CBSAX)(NASDAQ:CBSBX)(NASDAQ:CMCCX)
(NASDAQ:CBSDX)(NASDAQ:CBSGX)(NASDAQ:CBSTX)(NASDAQ:CLSPX)
Columbia Mid Cap Index (NASDAQ:NTIAX)(NASDAQ:NMPAX)
Columbia Mid Cap Value (NASDAQ:CMUAX)(NASDAQ:CMUBX)(NASDAQ:CMUCX)
(NASDAQ:NAMAX)
Columbia Multi-Advisor Intl Equity (NASDAQ:NIIAX)(NASDAQ:NIENX)
(NASDAQ:NITRX)(NASDAQ:NIEQX)
Columbia Municipal Income (NASDAQ:NMUIX)(NASDAQ:NMNNX)(NASDAQ:NMNIX)
(NASDAQ:NMUNX)
Columbia NC Interm Muni Bond (NASDAQ:NNCIX)(NASDAQ:NNITX)
(NASDAQ:NNINX)(NASDAQ:NNIBX)
Columbia NJ Intermediate Muni Bd (NASDAQ:LNIAX)(NASDAQ:LNIBX)
(NASDAQ:LNICX)(NASDAQ:GNJBX)(NASDAQ:GNJAX)(NASDAQ:GNJTX)
Columbia NY Intermediate Muni Bd (NASDAQ:LNYAX)(NASDAQ:LNYBX)
(NASDAQ:LNYCX)(NASDAQ:GBNYX)(NASDAQ:GANYX)(NASDAQ:GNYTX)
Columbia NY Tax-Exempt (NASDAQ:COLNX)(NASDAQ:CNYBX)(NASDAQ:CNYCX)
Columbia OR Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ:COEAX)(NASDAQ:COEBX)
(NASDAQ:CORCX)(NASDAQ:COEDX)(NASDAQ:CMBFX)
Columbia Real Estate Equity (NASDAQ:CREAX)(NASDAQ:CREBX)
(NASDAQ:CRECX)(NASDAQ:CREDX)(NASDAQ:CREEX)
Columbia RI Intermediate Muni Bd (NASDAQ:LRIAX)(NASDAQ:LRIBX)
(NASDAQ:LRICX)(NASDAQ:GRBBX)(NASDAQ:GRBAX)(NASDAQ:GRITX)
Columbia SC Interm Muni Bond (NASDAQ:NSCIX)(NASDAQ:NISCX)
(NASDAQ:NSICX)(NASDAQ:NSCMX)
Columbia Short Term Bond (NASDAQ:NSTRX)(NASDAQ:CTBBX)(NASDAQ:NSTIX)
(NASDAQ:NSTMX)
Columbia Short Term Muni Bond (NASDAQ:NSMMX)(NASDAQ:NSMNX)
(NASDAQ:NSMUX)(NASDAQ:NSMIX)
Columbia Small Cap Core (NASDAQ:LSMAX)(NASDAQ:LSMBX)(NASDAQ:LSMCX)
(NASDAQ:GBSMX)(NASDAQ:SSCEX)(NASDAQ:SMCEX)
Columbia Small Cap Growth I (NASDAQ:CMSCX)
Columbia Small Cap Growth II (NASDAQ:NSCGX)(NASDAQ:NCPBX)
(NASDAQ:NCPCX)(NASDAQ:PSCPX)
Columbia Small Cap Index (NASDAQ:NMSAX)(NASDAQ:NMSCX)
Columbia Small Cap Value I (NASDAQ:CSMIX)(NASDAQ:CSSBX)
(NASDAQ:CSSCX)(NASDAQ:CSCZX)(NASDAQ:COVAX)(NASDAQ:COVBX)
(NASDAQ:COVCX)(NASDAQ:NSVAX)
Columbia Small Company Equity (NASDAQ:LSEAX)(NASDAQ:LSEBX)
(NASDAQ:LSECX)(NASDAQ:GERBX)(NASDAQ:GASEX)(NASDAQ:GSETX)
Columbia Strategic Income (NASDAQ:COSIX)(NASDAQ:CLSBX)(NASDAQ:CLSCX)
(NASDAQ:LSIZX)
Columbia Strategic Investor (NASDAQ:CSVAX)(NASDAQ:CSVBX)
(NASDAQ:CSRCX)(NASDAQ:CSVDX)(NASDAQ:CSVFX)
Columbia Tax-Exempt (NASDAQ:COLTX)(NASDAQ:CTEBX)(NASDAQ:COLCX)
Columbia Tax-Exempt Insured (NASDAQ:CEXIX)(NASDAQ:CEIBX)
(NASDAQ:CEINX)(NASDAQ:CTEZX)
Columbia Tax-Managed Growth I (NASDAQ:STMAX)(NASDAQ:CTMBX)
(NASDAQ:CTMCX)(NASDAQ:LTGEX)(NASDAQ:STMFX)(NASDAQ:LMGZX)
Columbia Technology (NASDAQ:CTCAX)(NASDAQ:CTCBX)(NASDAQ:CTHCX)
(NASDAQ:CTCDX)(NASDAQ:CMTFX)
Columbia Thermostat (NASDAQ:CTFAX)(NASDAQ:CTFBX)(NASDAQ:CTFDX)
(NASDAQ:COTZX)
Columbia Total Return Bond (NASDAQ:NSFAX)(NASDAQ:NSFNX)
(NASDAQ:NSFCX)(NASDAQ:NSFIX)
Columbia TX Interm Muni Bond (NASDAQ:NTITX)(NASDAQ:NTXTX)
(NASDAQ:NTXCX)(NASDAQ:NTXIX)
Columbia U.S. Treasury Index (NASDAQ:LUTAX)(NASDAQ:LUTBX)
(NASDAQ:LUTCX)(NASDAQ:IUTIX)
Columbia Utilities (NASDAQ:CUTLX)(NASDAQ:CUTBX)(NASDAQ:CUTFX)
(NASDAQ:LUFZX)
Columbia VA Interm Muni Bond (NASDAQ:NVAFX)(NASDAQ:NVANX)
(NASDAQ:NVRCX)(NASDAQ:NVABX)
Columbia World Equity (NASDAQ:CGUAX)(NASDAQ:CGUBX)(NASDAQ:CGUCX)
Columbia Young Investor (NASDAQ:LYIAX)(NASDAQ:LYIBX)(NASDAQ:LYICX)
(NASDAQ:SRYIX)
On June 8, 2005, the NASD announced that it had fined AIG in connection with
the receipt of directed brokerage in exchange for preferential treatment for
certain mutual fund companies and certain mutual fund families (the "Shelf-Space
Funds").
The Shelf-Space Funds included the following mutual fund families: AIG SunAmerica,
AIM, AllianceBernstein, American Funds, American Skandia, Columbia, Fidelity,
Franklin Templeton, Hartford, John Hancock, MFS, NationsFunds, Pacific Life,
Pioneer, Putnam, Oppenheimer, Scudder, Van Kampen, and WM Funds Distributor,
Inc.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin
& Barroway, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.) toll-free
at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com .
The Complaint charges AIG and certain of its affiliated entities with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the defendants, in clear contravention of their disclosure obligations
and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had been
aggressively pushing sales personnel to sell the Shelf-Space Funds that provided
financial incentives and rewards to AIG and its personnel based on sales. Instead
of offering fair, honest and unbiased recommendations to investors, the AIG
Financial Advisors gave pre-determined recommendations, pushing clients into
a pre-selected limited number of mutual funds so that the Financial Advisors
could reap millions of dollars in kickbacks from the Shelf-Space Funds, with
which they had struck secret, highly lucrative deals to profit at shareholders'
expense. The defendants' sales practices created a material insurmountable conflict
of interest between the defendants and their clients by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds, sales of which increased the
defendants' overall profits, but diminished investors' returns in the process.
While Shelf-Space Funds were aggressively sold to investors, the defendants
failed to disclose any of these financial incentives for selling such funds.
The conflict of interest created by the defendants' failure to disclose the
incentives is a clear violation of federal securities laws.
Comverse Technology, Inc.
(NASDAQ:CMVT)
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Comverse Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:CMVT). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from April 30, 2001 through April 16, 2006.
Connetics Corporation
(NASDAQ:CNCT)
A class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Connetics Corporation ("Connetics") (NASDAQ:CNCT)
common stock during the period between June 28, 2004 and May 3, 2006 (the "Class
Period").
The complaint charges Connetics and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Connetics is a specialty
pharmaceutical company that engages in the development and commercialization
of products for the medical dermatology market.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false statements
about the Company's most important new drug (Velac) concerning findings that
would likely prevent FDA approval. Defendants also reported false financial
results by failing to properly reserve for rebates. On May 3, 2006, Connetics
announced it could not file its quarterly report on time due to a restatement
of its financial results. As a result of defendants' false statements, Connetics'
stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, which allowed defendants
to reap millions of dollars in insider trading proceeds. However, after the
May 3, 2006 announcement, the Company's shares collapsed 45% from their high.
The stock now trades at $10-$11 per share, some 63% below the Class Period high
of $29.92.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants
but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:
(a) the carcinogenicity study of Velac had indicated that 89 out of 160 mice
treated with Velac developed tumors; (b) prior to the Class Period, Connetics
had been informed by a panel of toxicology experts that they were unaware of
any drug with similar results to Velac ever being approved by the FDA; (c) the
Company's new Velac drug would be deemed unsafe by the FDA and would not provide
the revenue and income promised by the Company; (d) the Company would not be
able to achieve the operating results for 2006-2007 as projected due to its
inability to launch Velac; and (e) the Company was falsifying its financials
for at least 2005 and likely earlier due to improper accounting for rebates.
Dell Inc.
(NASDAQ:DELL)
A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Dell Inc. ("Dell")
(NASDAQ:DELL) publicly traded securities between February 13, 2003 and September
8, 2006 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Dell and certain of its officers and directors with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout
the Class Period, defendants caused Dell to report inflated financial results,
including misstating the accrual and reserves reported on the Company's balance
sheet. The complaint alleges that by at least August 2005, the defendants were
aware of but concealed from investors the fact that the SEC was investigating
the Company's revenue recognition and accounting practices. Unable to maintain
the charade, the complaint alleges defendants began reducing sales and profit
projections as Dell began missing its own revenue, EPS and unit sales growth
targets, causing significant declines in its stock price. In order to support
the Company's stock price, the complaint alleges defendants continued concealing
the full extent of Dell's problems and promising a quick turnaround.
On August 17, 2006, Dell announced its fifth consecutive quarter of disappointing
results, again significantly missing its own revenue and EPS targets. The Company
also finally revealed the SEC had begun investigating its revenue recognition
practices and other accounting practices in August 2005, and announced that
in connection with its own internal accounting review it had recently discovered
information that raised potential issues relating to certain periods prior to
fiscal 2006. The Company also disclosed that its Audit Committee was undertaking
a full review.
Finally, on September 11, 2006, defendants disclosed that as the Audit Committee
had not finished its review, the Company would not be able to file its interim
financial report for its second quarter of 2007, that the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York had served Dell with a subpoena requesting
documents concerning its accounting and financial reporting between 2002 and
2006, and that the Company had indefinitely suspended its ongoing share repurchase
program, causing Dell's stock price to continue its decline, with shares trading
as low as $20.52 in intra-day trading on September 11, 2006, a decline of more
than 50% from its Class Period high.
Dendreon Corporation
(NASDAQ:DNDN)
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against Dendreon Corporation (NASDAQ:DNDN). The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations
of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from
March 30, 2007 through May 8, 2007.
Dyadic International, Inc.
(ASE:DIL)
A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the common
stock of Dyadic International, Inc., ("Dyadic") (ASE:DIL), from November
10, 2006 through April 23, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The action is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
as civil action number 07-80948 before the Honorable William Dimitrouleas.
The complaint asserts claims against defendants Dyadic International, Inc.,
Mark A. Emalfarb, Stephen J. Warner, Harry Z. Rosengart, Richard J. Berman,
Robert B. Shapiro and Glenn E. Nedwin for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint alleges operational and financial improprieties perpetrated by
the Company and its Asian subsidiaries, and knowingly and/or recklessly approved
by the defendants, which culminated in an internal investigation and subsequent
firing of the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Mark A. Emalfarb.
As a result of the improprieties in the Company's Asian subsidiaries and the
subsequent internal investigation, the Company has abandoned its Asian operations
and the Company's stock, which was artificially inflated as a result of the
material omissions and misstatements contained within the Company's publicly
filed financial statements and reports, is no longer publicly traded and is
at risk of being delisted, resulting in total loss of equity for owners of Dyadic's
securities.
I would like more information about joining this lawsuit.
Eli Lilly and Company
(NYSE:LLY)
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of Eli Lilly
and Company (NYSE:LLY) ("Lilly" or the "Company") from March
28, 2002 and December 22, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint charges Lilly and certain of its officers and directors with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for disseminating false and misleading
statements concerning Zyprexa, the Company's best-selling product.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (a) that they were aware of the
clear link between Zyprexa and diabetes; and yet failed to warn the public at
large of the serious and material risks associated with Zyprexa use; (b) that
they had engaged in an illicit scheme to offset a drop in sales that was certain
to occur (and, in fact, did occur) when reports of Zyprexa's side effects surfaced,
by creating a marketing plan for Zyprexa which included, as a primary component,
the evaluation and pursuit of sales opportunities for the drug based on "off-label"
uses; (c) that the growth rate in Zyprexa sales would not be sustainable once
information about the health risks of Zyprexa and Lilly's illegal marketing
plan were disclosed publicly; (d) that they disregarded data that undermined
the "safety and effectiveness" of the drug; (e) that their "quality-assurance
procedures relating to the quality and integrity of scientific information and
production" as it pertained to Zyprexa were woefully inadequate; (f) that,
by engaging in an illicit "off-label" marketing" program as to
Zyprexa, they had not "enhance[d]" its policies and procedures designed
to assure that its marketing and promotional practices and physician communications
"compl[ied] with promotional laws and regulations;" (g) that they
failed to warn the public of the serious health risks associated with Zyprexa
use and that its illicit "off-label" marketing program was a direct
violation of its own code of conduct as set forth in "The Red Book;"
and (h) that their illicit scheme of concealing the side effects of Zyprexa
and engaging in a massive illegal off- label marketing campaign potentially
subjected Lilly to substantial regulatory fines, penalties and other legal action,
thereby compromising the Company's overall financial condition and prospects.
Sales of Zyprexa grew from $3.69 billion to $4.42 billion between 2002 and 2004,
and Lilly's stock price increased from $43.75 per share to $76.95 per share
between July 18, 2002 and May 7, 2004. Throughout the Class Period, Lilly had
internal information concerning a dangerous connection between the use of Zyprexa
and extreme weight gain and diabetes.
During the Class Period, in the face of mounting independent research connecting
Zyprexa to diabetes and weight gain, and the lawsuits by persons who suffered
these side-effects, Lilly emphatically denied any such link. Yet, as public
agencies raised warnings about the safety of Zyprexa, sales slowed and Lilly's
stock price dropped from $76.95 per share to $50.34 per share between May 7,
2004 and October 25, 2004 (representing a loss of market capitalization of over
$30 billion).
However, recent reports in The New York Times demonstrate that Lilly knew of
the very health risks that it denied repeatedly and that the Company also purposefully
marketed Zyprexa for illegal, off-label uses.
Thus, the over $30 billion dollar decline in Lilly's stock price between May
7, 2004 and October 25, 2004 was the direct result of defendants' fraudulent
conduct. Articles appearing in The New York Times between December 17 and 21,
2006 publicly disclosed for the first time that (a) the Company had engaged
in a decade-long effort to play down the health risks of Zyprexa; and (b) Lilly
actively marketed Zyprexa for illegal off-label uses (such as to treat older
patients with symptoms of dementia).
The publication of those articles caused an additional $3.49 per share decline
in the Company's stock price (or 6.4 percent), and represented a further market
loss of approximately $3.5 billion.
Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(NASDAQ:ENCY)
A class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf
of purchasers ofpublicly traded securities during the period between February
19, 2004 and March 24, 2006 (the Class Period).The complaint alleges that throughout
the Class Period Encysive made false and misleading statements regarding the
success of Sitaxentan, or Thelin, a drug it was developing to treat Pulmonary
Arterial Hypertension (), and stated that it had completed Phase III development
of Thelin. During the Class Period, defendants led shareholders and analysts
to believe that FDA approval was imminent and that such approval would make
Thelin a competitor to Acetelion Ltd.s similar drug, Tracleer (Bosentan). However,
after the Company completed two successful public offerings and the individual
defendants received cash/stock awards based on the apparent success of Thelin,
the Companys shareholders learned that defendants had been less than forthcoming
with the true prospects for Thelin. On March 27, 2006, U.S. regulators delayed
approving Thelin until they could get more data. The FDA sent the Company a
letter asking for information and possibly more studies to determine if Thelin
was safe and effective for use in treating PAH. On this news, Encysive shares
fell 49%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Encysive publicly traded securities during the Class Period (the ). The complaint
charges Encysive and certain of its officers and directors with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Encysive is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of different synthetic
small molecule compounds for the treatment of a range of cardiovascular, vascular
and related inflammatory diseases.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Encysive made false and
misleading statements regarding the success of Sitaxentan, or Thelin, a drug
it was developing to treat Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension ("PAH"),
and stated that it had completed Phase III development of Thelin. During the
Class Period, defendants led shareholders and analysts to believe that FDA approval
was imminent and that such approval would make Thelin a competitor to Acetelion
Ltd.'s similar drug, Tracleer (Bosentan). However, after the Company completed
two successful public offerings and the individual defendants received cash/stock
awards based on the apparent success of Thelin, the Company's shareholders learned
that defendants had been less than forthcoming with the true prospects for Thelin.
On March 27, 2006, U.S. regulators delayed approving Thelin until they could
get more data. The FDA sent the Company a letter asking for information and
possibly more studies to determine if Thelin was safe and effective for use
in treating PAH. On this news, Encysive shares fell 49%.
Erie Family Life Insurance
Company
(NASDAQ: ERIE)
A securities class action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Erie Family Life
Insurance Company ("EFL") (NASDAQ: ERIE) between March 21, 2004 and
March 24, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania against defendants EFL and its directors, along with Erie Indemnity
and Erie Exchange. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified,
you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you are a member
of the proposed class, you may move the court no later than August 21, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class. In order to serve as a
lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of
the proposed class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain
counsel of your choice.
FoxHollow Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ:FOXH)
A class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of common stock
of FoxHollow Technologies, Inc. ("FoxHollow" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:FOXH) during the period between May 13, 2005 through January 26, 2006
(the "Class Period").
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that FoxHollow, and certain of its officers and
directors, violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. FoxHollow engages in the manufacture and sale of a medical device,
called the SilverHawk, used to treat artery disease. Plaintiff alleges that,
during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
that misrepresented or concealed adverse facts, including that FoxHollow's Chairman
had directed management to acquire another private company, called Lumend, for
his own benefit and ultimately caused the Company to terminate certain senior
management based on their refusal to go along with the acquisition. When FoxHollow
announced that members of its senior management, including the CEO, COO and
VP of Sales were being replaced, in December 2005 and January 2006, the price
of FoxHollow's stock dropped nearly 50% on extremely heavy volume.
Greenfield Online, Inc.
(NASDAQ:SRVY)
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all common
stock purchasers of Greenfield Online, Inc.(NASDAQ:SRVY)("Greenfield Online"
or the "Company") from February 9, 2005 to September 30, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
The Complaint charges Greenfield Online and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Greenfield Online is
an independent collector of consumer opinions, which they provide to the global
marketing research industry. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1)
that internal performance expectations were not being met; (2) that the Company's
revenues and earnings would be significantly impacted in subsequent financial
quarters; (3) that the highly touted Ciao AG acquisition was unsuccessful in
its implementation and integration, and that Ciao AG was not performing as previously
expected; (4) that the Company's financial statements overvalued the Ciao AG
acquisition, and should have been written down to reflect Ciao AG's actual value;
(5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial
well-being, earnings, and future prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis
when made.
On August 9, 2005, after the market had closed, the Company announced that it
was revising its 2005 revenue guidance downward to $95 to $99 million, down
from the $102 to $108 million revenue guidance previously provided to investors.
The Company announced that its bid volume in the second quarter was essentially
flat in the U.S., and that its revised outlook also reflected an estimated $1.5
million negative adjustment related to the Company's estimates for foreign currency
translation. On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $3.31 per
share, or over 27% percent, to close on August 10, 2005 at $8.94 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then on September 29, 2005, the Company announced preliminary its Third Quarter
2005 results which revealed that the Company expected to report quarterly revenue
of $22 to $23 million, which was significantly below the quarterly revenue guidance
previously provided of $26 to $27 million. Additionally, the Company reported
that it had replaced its President and Chief Executive Officer, and had elected
new Directors to the Company's Board. On this news, shares of the Company's
stock declined an additional $1.53 per share, or almost 22 percent, to close
on September 30, 2005 at $5.44 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Heelys, Inc.
(NASDAQ:HLYS)
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Heelys, Inc. ("Heelys" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:HLYS)
issued pursuant or traceable to the false and misleading Registration Statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Heelys in connection with
the Company's December 2006 initial public stock offering ("IPO").
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in press releases
and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement used by
defendants in connection with the IPO was misleading in that it represented
that Heelys had a viable, well-established business plan and that its tremendous
revenue growth and resulting profits were based on sound business and stable
sales practices. Moreover, the Registration Statement failed to disclose the
staggering number of injuries suffered by Heelys' users in the months leading
up to the IPO. The Company and certain of its senior executives and directors
sold $155 million worth of Heelys stock at $21 per share in the IPO.
On August 8, 2007, following the issuance of product safety warnings by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission and other industry safety groups that affected
the shoe's marketability, defendants were forced to significantly downgrade
the Company's revenue and earnings guidance for the second half of 2007, admitting
that retailers were sitting on huge unsold inventory and refusing to place additional
orders. On this news, the Company's stock price fell 45% in a single trading
session on more than six-times the average daily trading volume over the preceding
month.
Herley Industries, Inc.
(NASDAQ:HRLY)
A class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Herley Industries,
Inc. ("Herley" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:HRLY) publicly
traded securities during the period between October 1, 2001 to June 14, 2006,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Herley and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Herley describes itself as
a "leader in the design, development and manufacture of microwave technology
solutions for the defense, aerospace and medical industries worldwide."
The complaint alleges that, since at least the start of the Class Period, the
Company and Lee N. Blatt, its Co-Founder and then Chairman of its Board of Directors,
engaged in a course of conduct to defraud the U.S. Government. The complaint
further alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous
positive statements concerning the Company's financial performance that failed
to disclose, among other things,: (a) that the Company's financial results were
achieved through illegal conduct, specifically the misrepresentation of manufacturing
costs on contracts with the U.S. Government and the falsification of a bid in
order to win the award of a contract; (b) that the Company lacked adequate internal
controls; and (c) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company would likely
be subject to enhanced governmental scrutiny, governmental fines for improper
conduct, and the Company's ability to receive new contract awards from the U.S.
Government and its ability to reap future revenues would be in serious doubt.
On June 6, 2006, the Company announced that the U.S. Attorney's office for the
Eastern District in Pennsylvania had indicted the Company and defendant Blatt
on multiple charges in connection with activities resulting in alleged excessive
profits by the Company on three contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense.
Then, on June 13, 2006, the Company announced that its operations in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, Woburn, Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois and Herley's subsidiary
in Farmingdale, New York were suspended from receiving new contract awards from
the U.S. Government. In response to these disclosures, shares of the Company's
stock have declined from $19.38 per share to a 52-week low of $9.21 per share,
losing more than 50% of their value.
Hollinger International, Inc.
(NYSE:SVN)
On June 28, 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order upholding certain plaintiffs' securities fraud claims against Hollinger International, Inc. (NYSE:SVN) and the Company's officers, directors and auditors and companies affiliated with Hollinger International, Inc. The plaintiffs allege misrepresentations made by defendants about Hollinger International, Inc.'s business and financial condition from August 13, 1999 to December 11, 2002 (the "Class Period"). As part of its ruling, the Court directed plaintiffs to address standing issues raised by the defendants by amending the Complaint to add named class members who purchased Hollinger stock between June 29, 2001 and December 11, 2002. .
Home Solutions of America, Inc.
(AMEX:HOM)
A lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Home Solutions of America, Inc. ("Home Solutions" or the "Company") (AMEX:HOM) between April 11, 2006 and June 6, 2006, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Home Solutions and certain officers and directors ("Defendants").
The complaint alleges that Defendants made a series of false and misleading
statements and or omissions regarding the Company's revenue opportunities. In
particular, starting on April 11, 2006, Home Solutions began announcing a series
of new contract awards related to infrastructure support for Hurricane Katrina
rebuilding efforts. One such deal involved American Renaissance Homes ("ARH"),
a builder that purportedly contracted with Home Services to provide services
in conjunction with the rebuilding efforts. However, on June 6, 2006, the Company
announced that it was in fact lending up to $800,000 to ARH for "working
capital" purposes. The complaint further alleges that Defendants prior
representations regarding a dramatic ramp up in revenues based on these contract
opportunities was false and misleading, concealing the Company's inability to
expand either revenues or margins. In reaction to this news, shares of Home
Solutions' stock fell, losing 29.1%, or $2.80 per share, to close on June 6,
2006 at $6.80 per share.
Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc.
(NYSE:HOS)
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and other
securities of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. ("Hornbeck" or the
"Company") (NYSE:HOS) who purchased during the period from November
1, 2006 through January 10, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that Hornbeck and certain of its officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements
and omissions concerning the Company's operations and expected earnings for
the 4th Quarter 2006, and for fiscal 2007. On November 1, 2006, the Company
reaffirmed its guidance for fiscal 2007 and specifically reaffirmed earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") for
the fourth quarter of 2006 to range of between $39.0 million and $41.0 million
and earnings per share to range of between $0.69 and $0.74. On November 6, 2006,
the Company announced an offering of $200.0 million in convertible senior notes
with an over-allotment of $30.0 million in principal amount of additional notes.
On November 13, 2006, the Company announced that it had closed the note offering
and received the offering proceeds. These aggressive projections were crucial
to the completion of the note offering, but have the effect of artificially
inflating the price of the stock.
On January 10, 2007, the Company shocked the market by announcing that that
it was revising its EBITDA and earnings per share guidance for the fourth quarter
of 2006 and for fiscal 2006, materially reducing EBITDA for the fourth quarter
of 2006 to range between $33.0 million and $34.0 million, down from $39.0 million
to $41.0 million. The Company announced it now expected that per share earnings
for the fourth quarter of 2006 to range between $0.61 and $0.63, down from $0.72
to $0.77. It also expected to reduce 2007 guidance by 15 to 20 percent.
The Company was forced to admit that it had knowledge over the previous several
months that operating issues had negatively impacted the Company's financial
performance, including volatility in the offshore vessel day-rate, a lag in
the shipyard delivery schedules for new-builds and increased turnaround time
for regulatory dry-dockings, repairs and maintenance, as well as increased costs
for personnel and insurance.
As a result of this unexpected news, the price Hornbeck shares slumped to a
52-week low in early trading on January 11, 2007 and the stock was down $7.11,
or 21.2%, on markedly increased volume.
Ikanos Communications, Inc.
(NASDAQ: IKAN)
A securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock and other securities of Ikanos Communications,
Inc. (NASDAQ: IKAN) ("Ikanos" or the "Company") pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO")
that took place on September 22, 2005 or its secondary public offering on March
8, 2006. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing
a series of material misrepresentations to the market relating to the IPO and
the secondary public offering, thereby artificially inflating the price of Ikanos.
Image Innovations Holdings,
Inc.
(OTC Pink Sheets: IMGV)
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Image Innovations Holdings, Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: IMGV). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from April 13, 2004 through March 16, 2006.
InfoSonics Corporation
(AMEX:IFO)
A class action complaint was filed against InfoSonics Corporation ("InfoSonics")
(AMEX:IFO) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on behalf of investors who purchased the publicly traded securities of InfoSonics
during the period from May 9, 2006 through and including June 9, 2006 (the "Class
Period").
The complaint alleges that InfoSonics and its top officers engaged in a scheme
to defraud InfoSonics investors in violation of the federal securities laws
by reporting false financial results on May 8, 2006 for its first quarter ended
March 31, 2006. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants knew, or
with deliberate recklessness disregarded, that the Company had improperly accounted
for warrants issued in connection with a January 2006 private placement which
enabled it to report net income of $1.738 million for that quarter. Before the
market opened on Monday, June 12, 2006, InfoSonics shocked the market when it
disclosed that it would need to restate its previously reported net income for
the first quarter down to $1.173 million, a decrease of 32.5%, due to the improper
accounting treatment of the warrants. InfoSonics stock immediately plunged more
than 28% that day on extraordinarily high volume.
The Complaint further alleges that, while in possession of material nonpublic
information concerning InfoSonics accounting for the warrants, defendants sold
massive amounts of their personal holdings between May 11, 2006 and June 7,
2006 for proceeds exceeding $3 million. Indeed, as the Company admitted in a
Form 8-K filed on June 12, 2006 with the SEC, InfoSonics had determined by Monday,
June 5, 2006 that it would need to restate its previously reported financial
results because it had improperly accounted for the warrants. Nevertheless,
its Chief Financial Officer and the President of the Company's Latin American
operations continued to sell their personal InfoSonics stock even after that
determination.
International Coal Group, Inc.
(NYSE:ICO)
A class action has been commenced on behalf of institutional investors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
on behalf of all persons who acquired International Coal Group, Inc. ("ICG")
(NYSE:ICO) common stock in connection with and traceable to ICG's common stock
offerings which took place on or about November 21, 2005 and December 7-8, 2005
(the "Offerings"). The Class Period is November 18, 2005 to October
4, 2006.
The complaint charges ICG and certain of its officers and directors and its
underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. ICG is a coal producer
with operations in West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland and Illinois.
The complaint alleges that in November and December 2005, ICG undertook two
integrated stock transactions involving Registration Statements filed and effective
with the SEC. The Offerings were mutually interdependent. The statements in
the November and December 2005 Registration Statements concerning the Company's
business, the strength of its management team, its safety and maintenance practices,
its ability to capitalize on favorable market conditions, its ability to deliver
optimum selections of coal to meet increasing demand, and its acquisition of
the Anker Coal Company and company reorganization were all false and misleading
when made. In fact, the Company was suffering from serious shortfalls in its
maintenance and safety procedures, its mines were ill-equipped, as were its
miners, the Anker acquisition had been a mistake, saddling the Company with
outmoded and dangerous mining operations, the Company's top management team
was distracted by work involved in the November 2005 reorganization and December
2005 offering and the Company would be unable to produce sufficient amounts
of coal in desired mixes to meet its revenue and earnings and production forecasts.
After the November and December 2005 Registration Statements became effective,
information entered the marketplace in a series of company-specific negative
revelations contradicting the prior representations made and demonstrating the
falsity of the Registration Statements. As a result, the Company's stock price
declined sharply, damaging Class members who purchased the stock issued by the
Company in the Offerings.
International Rectifier Corporation
(Nasdaq:IRF)
A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of International
Rectifier Corporation ("IRF" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:IRF)
publicly traded securities during the period October 27, 2005 through April
9, 2007 (the "Class Period).
The Complaint alleges that IRF and certain of its officers and directors violated
Federal Securities Laws. Defendants failed to disclose that IRF's revenues,
gross profits, earnings, and accounts receivable were false and misleading,
and in violation of generally accepted accounting principles. The Complaint
further alleges that on April 9, 2007, before the markets opened, IRF disclosed
that an internal investigation revealed "accounting irregularities"
at one of IRF's foreign subsidiaries which included premature revenue recognition
of product sales.
The Company disclosed that its Audit Committee had determined that a material
weakness existed in the Company's internal control over financial reporting,
and therefore management's previously issued representations that the Company
possessed adequate internal controls could no longer be relied upon by investors.
On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $2.83 per share, or 7.3%,
to close on April 9, 2007 at $35.97 per share.
Ionatron, Inc.
(Nasdaq:IOTN)
A lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of all persons who purchased
the publicly traded securities of Ionatron, Inc. ("Ionatron" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:IOTN) between June 27, 2005 and May 10, 2006, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing
a series of materially false statements regarding the battle field-readiness
of its weapons. Specifically, on June 27, 2005, the Company heralded the development
of a field-deployable vehicle incorporating its counter-Improved Explosive Device
("IED") technology, also known as the Joint IED Neutralizer ("JIN").
Ionatron announced that it planned to sell this counter-IED vehicle to the U.S.
Government. Despite the Company's claim that the vehicle would be field-deployable,
the complaint alleges that the Company actually concealed that the vehicle was
at best an improvisation, incapable of meeting U.S. Government specifications
for field-readiness. Meanwhile, Company insiders sold over 1.5 million shares
of their Ionatron stock for proceeds of $18.4 million.
On May 10, 2006, the Company finally revealed to investors that the JIN vehicle
actually was not "deployment-ready" in that the U.S. Government determined
that the vehicle lacked the ruggedness and capabilities necessary for field
deployment. On this news, the price of Ionatron stock plummeted, losing 12.3%,
to close on May 11, 2006, at $11.25.
.
Jabil Circuit, Inc.
(NYSE:JBL)
A class action shareholder lawsuit has been commenced against Jabil Circuit,
Inc. ("JBL") (NYSE:JBL). The lawsuit, filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased JBL securities between
September 19, 2001 and June 21, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that JBL and certain officers and directors manipulated
the prices of stock option grants and made materially false and misleading statements
and/or omitted material facts necessary to make those statements not misleading.
The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78n(a), and 78t(a) and Rules
10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sections 240.10b-5 and 240.14a-9.
When the truth about the Company's stock options backdating emerged publicly,
JBL's stock price fell as a result.
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.
(Nasdaq:JOSB)
A lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers,
Inc. (the "Company") (Nasdaq:JOSB) between January 5, 2006 and June
7, 2006, inclusive, (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing
a series of materially false statements. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose the following: (i) the Company had overinvested in inventories of fall
clothing, building excessive levels of in-stock inventories of seasonal merchandise
that carried over into the first quarter of 2006; (ii) that the Company resorted
to very aggressive promotional pricing in February and March 2006 which deeply
discounted the prices of the merchandise in order to move the merchandise and
make room for new seasonal merchandise; and (iii) the Company's gross profit
margins were substantially reduced in February and March 2006 by reason of the
inventory and pricing actions taken by defendants which caused the Company's
profit margins and profits in February and March 2006 to shrink dramatically
even as sales revenues increased, which represented an extreme departure from
Jos. A. Bank's historical pattern.
On June 8, 2006, defendants announced that net income for the first quarter
of 2006 had fallen 13% even as sales revenues increased 18%. On this news, the
Company's common stock fell 29%, dropping $10.72 to close at $26.40 per share
on June 8, 2006.
Juniper Networks, Inc.
(Nasdaq:JNPR)
A securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Juniper Networks,
Inc. (Nasdaq:JNPR) stock during a class period of September 1, 2003 and May
22, 2006.
The complaint charges Juniper Networks and its top executive officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws by failing to account properly for stock
options made to Juniper Networks employees. The complaint charges that Juniper
Networks improperly expensed stock options, thereby falsely inflating the company's
reported financial performance.
.
KLA-Tencor Corporation
(Nasdaq:KLAC)
A securities fraud class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of KLA-Tencor
Corporation (Nasdaq:KLAC) stock during a class period of February 13, 2003 to
May 22, 2006.
The complaint charges KLA-Tencor and its top executive officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws by failing to account properly for stock
options made to KLA-Tencor employees. The complaint charges that KLA-Tencor
improperly expensed stock options, thereby falsely inflating the company's reported
financial performance.
If you purchased KLA-Tencor Corporation stock between February 13, 2003 and
May 22, 2006 and have sustained damages, you may, no later than August 28, 2006,
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing
the litigation, and you must meet certain legal requirements to serve as a lead
plaintiff.
LCA-Vision Inc.
(NASDAQ:LCAV)
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of LCA-Vision Inc. ("LCA")
(NASDAQ:LCAV - News) common stock during the period between February 12, 2007
and July 30, 2007 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges LCA and certain of its officers and directors with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LCA is engaged in the provision of fixed-site
laser vision correction services at its LasikPlus vision centers.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial
results, including EPS guidance of $2.05 to $2.15 for 2007. As a result of defendants'
false statements, LCA stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $50.56 per share in July 2007.
Then, on July 31, 2007, before the market opened, LCA issued a press release
announcing its financial and operational results for the three months and six
months ended June 30, 2007, and in a surprise announcement retracted the Company's
statements through the first seven months of the year that it would earn $2.05
to $2.15 for the year, lowering it EPS guidance for 2007 to $1.90 to $2.00.
On this news, LCA's stock collapsed to close at $35.51 per share, a decline
of 17%, on volume of 3.5 million shares.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:
(a) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as a result, the Company's
projections and reported results issued during the Class Period were based upon
defective assumptions about the Company's marketing budget and deferred revenue;
and (b) the Company knew that its revenues were driven almost entirely by the
number of procedures performed in its vision centers during the first quarter
of the each year and that the Company's existing stores (in operation for over
12 months) were not showing growth and any overall growth was being derived
from new store openings. As a result, the Company's projections issued during
the Class Period about its forecasted 2007 EPS were at a minimum reckless.
LDK Solar Co. Ltd.
(NYSE:LDK)
A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of LDK Solar Co.
Ltd. ("LDK") (NYSE:LDK) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
during the period from August 1, 2007 to October 3, 2007 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges LDK and certain of its officers and directors with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LDK manufactures multicrystalline solar
wafers, which are the principal raw material used to produce solar cells.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants concealed
the full extent of how badly flawed the Company's internal controls were, preventing
it from accurately measuring or reporting its inventory. As a result, the Company's
inventories were overstated by an estimated 25%, causing inflation in LDK's
assets, earnings and earnings per share ("EPS") reported during the
Class Period.
On October 3, 2007, LDK's share price fell almost 25% following a report that
LDK's financial controller had resigned, stating that the Company lacked internal
controls and that the Company's reported 1,000 tonne inventory of polysilicon
was overstated by 25%. LDK's former controller, Charley Situ, reported these
discrepancies to both the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Company's
external auditor, KPMG. LDK could not deny or confirm Situ's allegations on
October 3, 2007, but promised to investigate and issue a further statement.
The Company has since stated it will have an independent outside auditor investigate
Situ's allegations. The Company's ADSs, which traded as high as $76.75 on September
27, 2007, plummeted $16.66, or 24.39%, to close at $51.65 on October 3, 2007.
The ADSs continued to decline in after-hours trading, falling to $47.49.
The complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period statements describing LDK's
business fundamentals, financial results and continued sales and earnings growth
potential were false and misleading as: (a) defendants had overstated LDK's
inventory of polysilicon prior to and during the Class Period and those false
statements remained alive in the market during the Class Period; and (b) due
to the Company's inventory of polysilicon being overstated, the Company's reported
earnings and EPS prior to and during the Class Period were false and those false
statements remained alive in the market during the Class Period.
Legg Mason Inc.
(NYSE: LM)
Investigating has started for possible illegal conduct as alleged in classaction
lawsuits filed by certain law firms on behalf of investors in Legg Mason Inc.
("Legg Mason" or the "Company") (NYSE: LM) whopurchased
the common stock of Legg Mason between June 24, 2005 andJuly 24, 2006 (the "Class
Period").
The class actions are pending in the United States District Court forthe Southern
District of New York against Legg Mason and certain ofits officers and directors.
The complaints in the above-referencedactions allege that Legg Mason and certain
of its officers anddirectors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint in one of the above-referenced actions alleges thatduring the
Class Period, Legg Mason issued positive statementregarding its financial condition
and business prospects.Specifically, the Company represented that its acquisition
ofCitigroup Inc.'s worldwide asset management ("CAM") business wouldtransition
the Company into a "major pure play" global assetmanagement company.
In addition, the Company claimed that the CAMacquisition would be accretive
to earnings, and that, as a result,the Company would realize cost savings of
between $80 million and$115 million. According to the complaint, these statements
werematerially false and misleading because defendants failed to disclosethe
following materially adverse facts: (a) Legg Mason had failed tosuccessfully
integrate CAM because of a lack of compatible corporatestructures; (b) the Company's
acquisition of CAM assets wasunsuccessful as a result of integration problems;
(c) formerCitigroup customers had withdrawn billions of dollars of assets fromLegg
Mason funds which had a materially adverse effect on theCompany's profitability
and financial prospects; (d) the Company'sflagship equity fund, the Legg Mason
Value Trust, was generatingdiminishing returns and caused pressure on the Company's
margins; and(e) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's projections regardingits
financial performance lacked any reasonable basis in fact.
On May 1, 2006, Legg Mason announced that it would conduct anearnings conference
and release its fourth quarter 2006 financialresults on May 10, 2006. News of
the Company's disappointing resultsleaked into the market and the price of the
Company's common stockdeclined precipitously on May 1, 2006, falling $6.48,
or 5.4%, fromits closing price of $118.48 on the previous trading day to close
at$112.00. On May 10, 2006, Legg Mason announced its fourth quarter2006 results,
which fell significantly below analysts' estimates. TheCompany attributed the
disappointing results, in part, to asubstantial increase in expenses as a result
of the CAM acquisition.In reaction to this news, the price of Legg Mason shares
fell another$8.46 per share, or 7.26%, to close at $108.06 per share. On July
25,2006, the last day of the Class Period, Legg Mason announced itsfirst quarter
2007 results that, again, fell below analysts'estimates. The Company reported
a 1.3% decline in revenues, adecrease of $6.5 billion in assets under management
as a result ofcustomer redemption, and increased costs related to the CAMacquisition.
In reaction to this news, the price of Legg Mason stockfell $8.01 per share,
or 8.4%, to close at $86.32 on July 25, 2006.
LJ International Inc.
(NASDAQ:JADE)
A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of LJ International
Inc. ("LJ") (NASDAQ:JADE) common stock during the period between February
15, 2007 and September 6, 2007 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges LJ and certain of its officers and directors with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LJ is engaged in the design, branding,
marketing and distribution of jewelry to jewelers, department stores, national
jewelry chains and electronic and specialty retailers.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants provided
false and misleading reports overstating the Company's fiscal 2005 and 2006
financial results. As a result of those false statements, the Company's stock
traded at inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $13.15
by May 14, 2007.
On July 16, 2007, the Company announced that it was delaying the release of
its fourth quarter 2006 through second quarter 2007 financial results because
the Company's new auditors were unable to sign off on the Company's accounting.
Then on September 6, 2007, LJ disclosed that it had not achieved the fourth
quarter and fiscal 2006 financial results it had previously provided on January
8, 2007, and upgraded on February 15, 2007, due to a "potential tax provision,"
and that its fiscal 2006 earnings report of $3 million would "likely be
adversely impacted." On this news the Company's stock price fell on extremely
high trading volume, trading below $6 per share in the weeks following the July
16, 2007 disclosure and below $5 per share after the September 6, 2007 disclosure.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:
(a) defendants had understated LJ's fiscal 2005 and 2006 tax liability and overstated
the Company's earnings and EPS prior to and during the Class Period and those
false statements remained alive in the market during the Class Period; (b) revenues
in LJ's wholesale division had softened during the Class Period; (c) defendants
made materially false and misleading representations regarding the Company's
ability to report the earnings required to facilitate meeting its stated goal
of growing its Chinese stores to 100 in advance of the 2008 Beijing Olympics;
and (d) the Company did not have the financial controls in place to accurately
report financial results or to provide meaningful forward guidance during the
Class Period.
Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc.
(NYSE:LUM)
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
purchasers of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. ("Luminent" or the "Company")
(NYSE:LUM) securities between July 24, 2007 and August 6, 2007, inclusive (the
"Class Period")..
The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws
by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading
press releases and SEC filings regarding Luminent's financial results and business
prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Luminent failed to disclose:
(i) the Company was not sufficiently liquid; (ii) the Company's financial statements
and reports were not prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules; and (iii)
that defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that the Company had ample
liquidity and that the dividend payments were secure. As a result, the price
of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class
Period. On August 6, 2007, however, defendants shocked the market when they
announced that the Company was cancelling the payment of its dividend. In response
to the announcement, Luminent's share price dropped to a low of $3.75 on August
6, 2007 before trading was halted. It then opened on August 7, 2007 at $0.50,
representing a drop of over 85%.
Meade Instruments, Inc.
(NASDAQ:MEAD)
A class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of investors who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Meade Instruments, Inc. ("Meade") (NASDAQ:MEAD) between
September 27, 2001 and August 29, 2006.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented
and omitted material facts concerning Meade's backdating of stock option grants
to its officers John Diebel and Steven Murdock. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that at all times during the Class Period, Meade represented that the exercise
price of all stock options would be no less than the fair market value of Meade's
common stock, measured by the publicly traded closing price for Meade stock
on the day of the grant.
However, in reality, those options were backdated so their exercise price correlated
to a day on or near the day Meade's stock hit its low price for the year, or
directly in advance of sharp increases in the price of Meade stock. Defendant
Diebel directly benefited by exercising these backdated options.
As the truth concerning Meade's practice of backdating option grants gradually
became known to the market from a variety of sources, the price of Meade's stock
fell $0.70, or 25%, between May 22, 2006 and August 29, 2006.
Micron Technology, Inc.
(NYSE:MU)
A class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in
the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of purchasers
of Micron Technology, Inc. ("Micron") (NYSE:MU) publicly traded securities
during the period between February 24, 2001 and February 13, 2003 (the "Class
Period").
The complaint charges Micron and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Micron manufactures and markets
semiconductor devices worldwide.
The complaint alleges that at the start of the Class Period, Micron and its
employees (along with others in its industry) were engaged in a scheme to manipulate
the price of dynamic random access memory, a type of computer memory semiconductor
chip, commonly known as DRAM. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during
the Class Period, defendants falsified the Company's public statements and financial
reporting by concealing the following material adverse facts from the investing
public: (a) that Micron and its co-conspirators had entered into and engaged
in a combination and conspiracy in the United States and elsewhere to suppress
and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of DRAM to be sold to certain
original equipment manufacturers of personal computers and servers; (b) that
Micron's publicly reported sales and earnings had been improperly inflated due
to illegal price-fixing activities during the Class Period; and (c) that as
a result of defendants' participation in the illegal price-fixing activities,
Micron's sales and earnings reports and forward-looking price forecasts issued
during the Class Period were false and misleading.
According to the complaint, as a result of defendants' false and misleading
Class Period statements, the Company's shares traded at inflated prices enabling
the Company to issue more than $632 million worth of debt during 2003, sell
over $480 million worth of warrants and complete numerous stock-for-stock acquisitions
using the Company's inflated shares as acquisition currency. Insiders also sold
approximately $4.5 million worth of their own personally held Micron stock at
inflated prices during the Class Period.
Midway Games Inc.
(NYSE:MWY)
A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Midway Games Inc. ("Midway")
(NYSE:MWY) common stock during the period between August 4, 2005 and May 24,
2006 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Midway and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Midway develops and publishes
software for major video game systems.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants assured investors
that Midway would perform as expected in the fourth quarter of 2005. In fact,
the Company did not perform as expected because defendants had decided to lay
off 8% of the Company's workforce and engage in costly restructuring. Before
the full costs of these decisions were made public, however, defendants were
able to sell off over $14 million of their shares on the open market within
three weeks of one another. On May 24, 2006, defendants announced that they
would have to sell $75 million in convertible notes that would be highly dilutive
to current shareholders in order to raise cash. In response to this announcement,
Midway's stock price fell to $7.39 per share.
Motorola, Inc.
(NYSE:MOT)
A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Motorola, Inc. ("Motorola") (NYSE:MOT) publicly traded securities during the period between July 19, 2006 and January 4, 2007 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Motorola and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Motorola builds, markets
and sells products, services and applications that make connections to people,
information and entertainment through broadband, embedded systems and wireless
networks.
The complaint alleges that in the summer of 2006, Motorola's poor financial
performance had depressed its stock price to below $19 per share. In order to
artificially inflate the price of Motorola stock, defendants began a series
of false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects.
Specifically, defendants repeatedly told investors to expect strong growth in
sales and revenues. On October 17, 2006, defendants announced that Motorola
had failed to meet its revenue and sales projections. As a result of this announcement,
Motorola's stock price declined over 7% in two trading days. Then on January
4, 2007, defendants announced that Motorola's fourth quarter 2006 results also
failed to meet expectations. This time, the Company's stock price declined almost
8%.
