International Vivendi Opt-Outs, Continued
The flow of cases filed by non-US institutional investors in the Vivendi litigation continues.
The newest batch brings the total number of investors that were excluded from the class by Judge Holwell's decision that have in turn filed individual or group claims to 78, spread across 29 different cases.
Those cases have now been consolidated with each other and with the class action. A copy of the consolidation order can be accessed here.
The following institutional investors (and their respective counsel) filed "opt-out" complaints since our last update:
Diaz, Reus, Rolff and Targ and Grant & Eisenhofer
Andra AP-Fonden
MEAG Munich Ergo Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH
MEAG Munich Ergo Assetmanagement Gmbh
Nordcon Investment Management AG
Tredje AP-Fonden
Labaton Sucharow
AGF Asset Management, S.A.
Aletti Gestielle SGR S.p.A.
Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec
Eurizon Capital SGR S.p.A.
Italfortune International Fund
Novara Aquilone Sicav
Motley Rice
Baden Wurttembergische Investmentgesellschaft mbH
DWS Austria Investmentgesellschaft mbH
DWS Investmentgesellschaft mbH
Forsta AP-Fonden
KBC Asset Management NV
Pioneer Investment Management Ltd.
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler
Famandsforeningen Pensam Invest
Fjarde Ap-Fonden
Swedbank Robur Fonder AB
As promised, we will keep a running tally of the non-class Vivendi cases here, so check back for updates.
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
January 17, 2008 |
 |
Upcoming Securities Class Action Webcast
I will be moderating a webcast on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 11:00 am EST entitled, Securities Litigation: What You Need to Know for 2008.
We will examine how trends in new cases and settlements are impacting investors. We will also look at important Supreme Court decisions and the two recent securities class action trials that took place within the 6 months.
I will be joined by Stuart Grant, Managing Partner at Grant & Eisenhofer, Lyle Roberts, Partner at Dewey & LeBoeuf and author of the noted blog, The 10b-5 Daily, and Kevin LaCroix, Director at OakBridge Insurance Services and author of The D&O Diary.
More information is available on the registration page, here.
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
January 16, 2008 |
|
Tallying Up the Federal Securities Class Action Trials - UPDATED
With the Apollo Group verdict now in, we have updated (again) our presentation detailing the 19 securities class action cases that have gone to trial since 1996.
The cases fall into three categories:
1.Securities Class Action Trials Based on Post-Reform Act Conduct Resulting in a Verdict at Trial (six)
2. Securities Class Action Trials Based on Post-PSLRA Conduct Resulting in a Settlement or Summary or Default Judgment During Trial (seven)
3. Securities Class Action Trials Based on Pre-PSLRA Conduct Resulting in a Verdict at Trial (six)
As always, readers are encouraged to send in any updates, additions, or corrections.
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
Apollo Group - The Verdict is In
Press reports indicate that a federal jury has found Apollo Group Inc. (NASDAQ: APOL) and certain former officers liable for securities fraud and has ordered them to pay $280 million to shareholders in the securities class action suit pending in the District of Arizona.
Apollo Group is the for-profit company that owns the University of Phoenix. The company has a website dedicated to the securities litigation, here.
The company has issued the following statement:
Apollo Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:APOL) is disappointed in the decision returned today by a Phoenix jury in a consolidated securities class action brought by the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago. The case, tried in federal district court in Arizona, was premised on Apollo’s supposed failure to disclose unsubstantiated allegations from a preliminary government report.“We disagree with the jury’s verdict, both the finding and the amount of damages,” said Wayne W. Smith of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, counsel to Apollo. “The law does not require the disclosure of preliminary or unproven charges in a government investigation. In not disclosing the report at issue, Apollo acted in good faith and in the best interests of its students, alumni, employees and shareholders, who could have been unfairly harmed by a premature disclosure.”
...
Apollo is evaluating options for appeal.
No comment yet from the plaintiffs or their counsel, but stay tuned.
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
January 3, 2008 |
|
Apollo Group trial updates
First, best wishes for a happy and healthy year to all of my readers.
Now, on to the good stuff, with two updates on the Apollo Group trial that has been going on in the District of Arizona.
Back on December 12, the plaintiffs rested their case and defendants moved for a directed verdict on the issue of loss causation. Judge Teilborg denied the motion, noting:
I'm finding that it is a question for the jury to decide whether or not and when there was a corrective disclosure seems to me this jury can conclude that the facts did, to use I think a word the plaintiffs have used, did dribble into the marketplace, and that the [UBS] analyst Kelly Flynn and the reports of that date [September 20, 2004] did indeed connect dots in such a way that they became the corrective disclosure.
And earlier this week, the parties had a meet and confer and agreed to present closing arguments on January 9, 2008, or on the next full day of trial.
The oddsmakers in Vegas are suggesting that we will have a verdict by January 10th.
Special thanks to Jeffrey A. Barrack, a Barrack, Rodos & Bacine partner and member of the trial team for finding the time to send us this stuff.
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |