Mercury Finance Company of Illinois - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Mercury Finance Company of Illinois Conclusion: According to the latest docket, the case later partially settled against two individual defendants for $2,350,000. The Final Judgment and Order of Partial Dismissal was entered on June, 29, 1999. Lastly, the case settled with defendant KPMG LLP for $40,500,000. The Final Order and Dismissal was entered on July 13, 2000.

By the order dated February 22, 1999, the District Court approved a partial settlement (the “December Settlement”) of this Action between the members of the Class and Defendants herein, with the exception of the Settling Defendants (Two individual defendants) and KPMG, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 7023 of the Federal Bankruptcy Rules. A summary of the terms of the December Settlement is set forth in a Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Partial Settlement of Class Action, and Settlement Hearing, which was mailed to members of the Class on or about January 8, 1999. Among other things, the December Settlement provided for the creation of a cash Settlement Fund for the benefit of the members of the Class with an aggregate value of Twenty-Eight Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($28,250,000). This global settlement includes: the Federal Class Claimants, the State Class Claimants, the Holder Claimants, and the ERISA Claimants.

As reported in the firm's 10-Q dated May 17, 1999, on July 15, 1998, the Company filed a voluntary petition (the "Voluntary Case") in the United States Bankruptcy Court (the "Court") for the Northern District of Illinois for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code. The Company's Second Amended Plan of Reorganization (the "Plan") was confirmed by order of the Court on March 10, 1999. The effective date of the Plan was March 23, 1999. The Plan provides that the Company to transfer to a certain trust established under the Plan (the "Liquidating Trust"), (i) $5 million in cash, (ii) the Company's claims against KPMG Peat Marwick and (iii) $250,000 in cash for fees and costs to be incurred in connection with the Liquidating Trust. The Plan also provides for holders of Securities Fraud Claims to receive a share of the beneficial interests in the Liquidating Trust in complete settlement, satisfaction and discharge of their claims. All of these costs have been fully provided for as March 31, 1999.

The original complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing to the investing public false and misleading statements regarding Mercury's operations, earnings, financial statements and future prospects. The complaint charges that, as a result of these misrepresentations, Mercury's common stock price was artificially inflated during the Class Period. The complaint alleges that defendants participated in a scheme to artificially inflate Mercury's common stock price in order to allow them to obtain substantial performance bonuses and to sell 575,000 shares of their personal Mercury common stock holdings, reaping proceeds of over $7.4 million.

According to the docket 97-CV-00624, on May 19, 1997, the case was included in the consolidated pre-trial proceeding in 97-CV-3035.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6141
Sector: Financial
Industry: Consumer Financial Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Mercury Finance Company of Illinois
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	mfn
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.mercuryfinance.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Daniel Raftery, et al. v. Mercury Finance Company, et al.

COURT: N.D. Illinois	DOCKET NUMBER: 97-CV-00624
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Charles R. Norgle Sr.
DATE FILED: 01/30/1997	SOURCE: Other
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/30/1994	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/29/1997
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Kenneth A. Elan 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago , IL, 60602 (voice) 312782.4880, (fax) , mmiller@millerfauchner.com McDermott, Will & Emery 227 West Monroe Street Suite 3100, Chicago, IL, 60606-5096onr (voice) 312.372.2000, (fax) , Robinson, Curley & Clayton 300 S Wacker Dr # 1700, Chicago, IL, 60601 (voice) 312.663.3100, (fax) , Wolf Popper, LLP 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022-6689Ave (voice) 877.370.7703, (fax) 212.486.2093, IRRep@wolfpopper.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/20/1998
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/21/2000

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re Mercury Finance Company Securities Litigation

COURT: N.D. Illinois	DOCKET NUMBER: 97-CV-3035
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Charles R. Norgle, Sr.
DATE FILED: 04/23/1998	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/30/1994	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/29/1997
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Heins, Mills & Olson, P.L.C. 700 Northstar East 608 Second Avenue South , Minneapolis, MN, 55402 (voice) , (fax) , Krislov & Associates, Ltd. 20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL, 60606 (voice) 312606.0500, (fax) 312.606.0207, mail@krislovlaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action, Proposed Partial Settlements Of Class Action, And Settlement Hearing
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 03/12/1999
Notice Of Class Action, Proposed Settlement With KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, And Hearing
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 04/14/2000
Supplemental Class Notice Regarding Allocation Of Settlement Funds, Plan Of Distribution, Claims Procedure, And Hearing
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 05/04/2001
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/28/2001
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/22/2002
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/19/2004

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Minnesota State Board of Investment
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/21/1997
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Minnesota State Board of Investment
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/20/1998
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Minnesota State Board of Investment
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/20/1998
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Chen, et al. v. Mercury Finance Company, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/20/1998

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�