Category Archives: Securities Class Actions

White v. Heartland High Yield Municipal Bond Fund

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

The Firm was co-counsel actively involved in the litigation of in this securities class action. The suit alleged, among other things, that the defendants had misrepresented the net asset values of various securities held by several funds managed by Heartland Advisors, Inc. In March 2001, the SEC obtained an Order authorizing it to seize the assets of several of the funds. In July 2002, the Court finally approved a partial settlement in the principal amount of $14 million on behalf of the Class and against all defendants other than defendant PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The action is proceeding against the auditor-defendant.

Complaint: Heartland High Yield

 

In The News

Selis v. KTI Corp

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

The Firm served as co-lead counsel in this securities class action. Plaintiffs alleged on behalf of purchasers of KTI’s common stock that the defendants had artificially inflated the market price of KTI’s securities by misrepresenting KTI’s financial performance and condition. On March 31, 2003, the federal district court finally approved a $3.8 million settlement for persons who purchased KTI shares between August 15, 1998 and April 14, 1999.

In The News

Legato Systems

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

The Firm actively participated in the litigation of this securities class action. The suit alleged, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading financial reports about Legato which operated to inflate artificially the price of the company’s publicly traded securities. In 2003, the Court finally approved a multi-million settlement for the Class.

In The News

PMA Capital Litigation

This securities class action names PMA Capital and certain former officers and directors as defendants and is filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Pollin v. PMA Capital Corporation, Civil Action No. 03-06122-EL.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  According to the Complaint, PMA’s public statements during the Class Period were materially false and misleading because (a) PMA maintained inadequate loss reserves for its PMA Re subsidiary; (b) reserve requirements for PMA Re announced in connection with the initial public offering of the Notes were materially insufficient; and (c) as a consequence of the understatement of loss reserves, PMA’s earnings and assets were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On November 4, 2003, PMA issued a press release announcing that it would have to increase its loss reserves for PMA Re by $150 million, and would be suspending its common stock dividend.  This news caused an immediate drop in the price of PMA’s common stock and the trading values of the 8.50% Notes.  On November 6, 2003, PMA issued a press release announcing the resignations of its president and chief executive officer and its chairman of the board.

In The News

Sovereign Bancorp

This is both a stockholders’ class action on behalf of the stockholders of Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. and a derivative action on behalf of Sovereign.  The action is brought to enjoin the proposed buyout by Sovereign’s controlling shareholder, Banco Santander, S.A. of the shares of Sovereign’s common stock it does not already own, pursuant to a Transaction Agreement dated as of October 13, 2008.  At the time it was announced, the deal valued Sovereign at
approximately $3.81 per share, representing no premium to Sovereign’s trading price as of
Friday, October 10. In the weeks since the Proposed Merger was announced, the implied
price per share has decreased significantly.

The Proposed Merger is the product of a flawed process that has resulted in a
proposed transaction at a woefully inadequate and unfair price. By its own admission, the
Sovereign Board did not seek to maximize shareholder value by seeking other potential
buyers. Instead, a committee of Board members reached out only to Santander, and did
everything it could to facilitate a rushed offer only from Santander, in a manner that
precluded the possibility of any superior deal for the Company and its shareholders.

After briefings, hearings and a trial a settlement was reached and was finalized on January 21, 2009 with a scheduled hearing on April 2, 2009.

Shareholder Derivative Complaint

Notice to Class

In The News