|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 5196 | Stocks | 09/30/2008
According to a press release dated September 24, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Preferred Series "J" stock ("Lehman Preferred J") of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("Lehman" or the "Company") (OTC: LEHJQ or LEHMQ) from the date of the Company's public offering on February 5, 2008 (the "Offering"), and all purchasers traceable thereto (the "Class Period") against certain officers and directors of Lehman and certain Underwriters of the Offering, pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the " Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. ss.ss. 77k, 77l and 77o (the "Class"). The Underwriters include Bank of America Securities LLC (NYSE:BAC), Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (NYSE:C), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (NYSE:MER), Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (NYSE:MS), UBS Securities LLC (NYSE:UBS), and Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC (NYSE:WB).
Specifically, the Complaint asserts that Lehman's Prospectus contained both material misstatements and omissions, which Plaintiff and the Class relied upon to their detriment. The representations made in the Company's Prospectus were materially false and misleading because at the time of the Offering, Lehman was already suffering from several adverse factors that were not revealed and/or adequately addressed in the document; including the failure to set aside adequate allowances to cover the Company's ever increasing portfolio of underperforming sup-prime related products and to adequately write-down commercial and residential mortgage and real estate assets. These factors were already causing a material adverse affect on Lehman's business and directly led to Lehman's September 15, 2008 announcement that it was seeking protection under the Federal Bankruptcy Code in the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history. The Complaint alleges that Defendants could have - and should have - discovered the material misstatements and omissions in the Company's Prospectus prior to its filing with the SEC and distribution to the investing public. Instead, they failed to do so as a result of a negligent and grossly inadequate due diligence investigation. On September 15, 2008, Lehman filed a voluntary petition to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the largest bankruptcy filing in history and largely wiping out the investment interests of the Class. As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market price of Lehman Preferred J was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements described in the complaint, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of Lehman Preferred J. Had plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.
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 Several class actions have been filed against e-messaging protection and transaction services provider Zix Corporation (Nasdaq:ZIXI) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between October 30, 2003, and May 4, 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. A class action has been filed against biopharmaceutical company Alkermes, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALKS) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between April 22, 1999, and July 1, 2002. 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. A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Northern District Court of Illinois against Douglas A. Hacker and others for violations of the Investment Company Act. Class members seek compensatory damages, disgorgement of the fees paid to the investment advisors and punitive damages. Several class actions have been filed against drug manufacturer Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:LGND), and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between July 28, 2003, and August 2, 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 software designer Siebel Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:SEBL) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between October 1, 2001, and July 17, 2002. 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. |
|
© 2000 - 2009 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
