Defendant Industrial Enterprises of America is an automotive aftermarket supplier founded in 1974. Their products range from basics like anti-freeze and motor oil, to charcoal fluids and packaged refrigerants used in the automotive and dusting markets.

The suit brought against IEA stems from both a blatant disregard for basic accounting principles and an overall scheme to dupe investors into a false sense of security with IEA’s financial future. This fairy tale came to a quick end starting with IEA’s first bit of negative news, an October 2007 Press Release stating IEA’s need to review their current accounting practices. The aftermath of IEA’s followup press release in November of 2007, explaining the need for revenue restatements, entity re-classifications and an increase in litigation reserves, was a devastating freefall of the companies share prices, from $2.19 to a closing price of $.80, a staggering 63% reduction in value.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons, other than defendants, who purchased common stock of IEAM between November 14, 2006 through November 8, 2007.

Complaint: IEAM Complaint

The above class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded common stock (NYSE: RAS – News) and all purchasers of the publicly issued Series A, B and C Preferred Shares of RAIT Financial Trust (“RAIT”) beginning on or about June 8, 2006 and thereafter, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The suit names the Company and certain officers and directors as defendants and is filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Salkowitz v. Rait Financial Trust, Civil Action No. 07-03406-LDD.

Complaint: RAIT Complaint
Press Releases: RAIT Press Release

Sunterra Corporation

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

The Firm is co-lead counsel for plaintiffs and the proposed class in this securities class action. The suit alleges, among other things, that certain of the former officers and directors of Sunterra caused the company to issue materially misleading financial reports and earnings releases about the company’s financial performance and prospects. As a result, plaintiffs contend that they and members of the class purchased Sunterra securities at prices that were artificially inflated because of defendants’ misleading statements and omissions. The suit also names as a defendant Arthur Anderson, LP, which had audited Sunterra’s financial statements and issued clean opinions. After filing for bankruptcy, Sunterra withdrew the financial statements at issue in the suit and stated they should not be used or relied upon by anyone. The case was settled in April 2005 for $5,450,000.

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

The Firm was co-counsel in this securities class action. The suit alleged, among other things, that the defendants had issued materially false and misleading financial statements concerning the condition and prospects of Sykes Enterprises. In March 2003, the Court finally approved a $30 million settlement on behalf of the Class.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

The Firm actively participated in the litigation of this securities class action. The suit alleged that Corel and certain of its senior officers had misrepresented Corel’s financial condition and the likelihood of significant revenues from its Linux-based products. In July 2003, the federal district court granted preliminary approval of a $7 million settlement for persons who purchased Corel shares between December 7, 1999 and March 20, 2000. A final approval hearing is scheduled for September 12, 2003.

Complaint: Corel Complaint

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

The Firm is one of the co-counsel actively involved in litigating this securities class action. The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially misleading financial statements, registration statements and earnings releases concerning the financial condition and prospects of Hamilton Bancorp. In January 2002, the Court denied defendants’ various motions to dismiss. In 2003, the Court certified a class of purchasers of Hamilton Bancorp securities.

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.

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.

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.