|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 3593 | Stocks | 08/03/2004
Several class actions have been filed against specialty chemical manufacturer Ferro Corporation (NYSE:FOE) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between October 28, 2003, and July 22, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants knew but concealed that: (1) Ferro’s polymer additives business was not profitable and was incurring greater losses than had been reported; (2) Ferro’s efforts to raise the prices of its polymer additives to offset increasing “raw materials” costs were ineffective, further eroding its revenues and profits; (3) that the company’s purportedly improving cost controls, especially regarding its polymer additives business, was actually the product of accounting manipulations that deferred or materially understated the true operating costs of the business; and (4) that the company’s disclosure controls and procedures were wholly ineffective contrary to the defendants’ representations. On July 22, 2004, the defendants revealed to the investing public that the company was slashing earnings expectations for the second quarter of fiscal 2004 by more than 70% based upon an internal review, purportedly conducted in conjunction with Ferro’s closing its books for the quarter. That review allegedly unearthed a multi-million dollar overstatement of earnings resulting from certain unspecified accounting manipulations. Upon this news, the price of Ferro shares fell by more than 16% to close at $20.68 per share. If you purchased securities issued by Ferro during the applicable period, you may request appointment by the court as a lead plaintiff if you do so by September 27, 2004. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiffs. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain any counsel of your choice to serve you in this action, or you may choose to do nothing, and remain in the class as a silent member. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Stocks Cases of Interest The parties have reached a tentative $410 million settlement in several class actions filed against defense contractor Raytheon Company (NYSE:RTN) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between January 28, 1999, and October 12, 1999. The actions claimed that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. Persons eligible to take part in the action should contact attorneys for the class. It may be time for greater government oversight of mutual fund companies. Several class actions have been filed against the Lord Abbett family of mutual funds (various stock symbols) and certain of the officers and directors both Lord Abbett & Company, LLC by investors who purchased Lord Abbett mutual funds between February 6, 1999, to November 17, 2003. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by drawing upon the assets of the Lord Abbett Funds to pay brokers to aggressively push Lord Abbett Funds over other funds, and then concealing the payments from investors by disguising them as brokerage commissions. The parties have reached a tentative $7,337,500 settlement in an action filed against HA-LO Industries, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between February 18, 1999, and July 30, 2001. Persons eligible to take part in the settlement must submit a proof of claim form postmarked no later than December 31, 2004, to be eligible for a portion of the settlement. A class action has been filed against Fairfax Financial Holdings, Ltd. (FFH), certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between March 24, 2004 and March 21, 2006. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. Several class actions have been filed against pharmaceutical development company POZEN, Inc., (Nasdaq:POZN) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between July 31, 2003, and May 28, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. Several class actions have been filed against energy holding company Progress Energy, Inc. (NYSE: PGN) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of investors who obtained Contingent Value Obligations (CVOs) in exchange for their Florida Progress common stock pursuant to the closing of the merger of CP&L Energy and Florida Progress Corporation and who purchased the CVOs between November 30, 2000, and February 12, 2002. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to inform prospective CVO holders that the tax benefits represented as being made available to synthetic fuel producers, which were critical to the imputed value of the CVOs, would be adversely affected by the application of the alternative minimum tax. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
