Vision Twenty-One, Inc. - 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

Vision Twenty-One, Inc. Conclusion: According to the docket dated April 6, 2004, on September 22, 2003, the court entered a Final Judgment of dismissal with prejudice by U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore. Earlier, on August 28, 2003, the Court granted the motion for attorney fees and expenses and awarded plaintiffs’ counsel $625,000.00 in attorneys' fees and $368,445.78 in expenses. The Stipulation of Settlement was entered and preliminarily approved by Judge Whittemore on February 18, 2003.

By the Notice of Hearing on Proposed Settlement, the settlement fund established consisted of $2,500,000 in cash.

The original class action suit charges defendants with violation of the securities Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Vision 21 misrepresented its ability to integrate the acquisitions that the Company had made during the Class Period and misstated its revenues, net income, and expenses reported in the Company's financial statements for the first and second quarters of fiscal 1998. The complaint further alleges on or around November 6, 1998, Vision 21 shocked the market when it reported a $0.03 per share loss for the third quarter of 1998, and admitted, among other things, that: (1) revenues for the first and second quarters were overstated and expenses were under-reported; and (2) it was forced to make adjustments to the third quarter financials resulting in a charge of $700,000, or just under $0.05 per share, for the accounting irregularities in the first and second quarters. During the Class Period, Vision 21 common stock traded as high as $11.75 per share. In the days following the November 6, 1998 announcement, the price of Vision 21 common stock plunged to $4.00 per share, losing over 60% of its value from its high during the Class Period.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 8741
Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Vision Twenty-One, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	EYES
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.vision21.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

McBride, et al. v. Vision Twenty-One, Inc., et al.

COURT: M.D. Florida	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-00138
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Henry L. Adams, Jr.
DATE FILED: 01/22/1999	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/05/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/05/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Hanzman, Criden, Korge, Chaykin, Ponce & Heise, P.A. 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Miami, FL, 33131 (voice) , (fax) , Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (New York) 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516ven (voice) 212.661.1100, (fax) 212.661.8665, info@pomerantzlaw.com/ Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY) The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126 (voice) 212.682.3025, (fax) 212.682.3010, info@wyca.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Securities Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/22/1999
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 99-CV-138
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/12/1999

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

McBride, et al. v. Vision Twenty-One, Inc., et al.

COURT: M.D. Florida	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-00138
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Henry L. Adams Jr.
DATE FILED: 08/16/1999	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/05/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/05/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (New York) 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516ven (voice) 212.661.1100, (fax) 212.661.8665, info@pomerantzlaw.com/ Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/16/1999
Notice Of Hearing On Proposed Settlement And Attorneys’ Fee Petition And Right To Share In Settlement Fund
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 02/26/2003
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/06/2004

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Rosen v. Vision Twenty-One, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/27/1999

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

�