Union Texas Petroleum Holdings, 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

Union Texas Petroleum Holdings, Inc. Conclusion: On July 14, 1999, U.S. District Judge Nora M. Manella issued an Order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the action. Judge Manella stated that at the hearing on the motion, plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to articulate what additional facts plaintiffs could allege to cure the deficiencies in the FAC. The action was dismissed with prejudice and the case closed.

The original complaint alleges that on or about May 4, 1998, Union Texas publicly announced that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") whereby ARCO would purchase all of the Company's outstanding common stock for $29.00 per share. In addition, Union Texas announced that Kravis Kohlberg & Roberts & Co. ("KKR"), its 25.6% shareholder, had agreed to tender its shares for the $29.00 offering price pursuant to its effort to liquidate its investment in Union Texas.

Further, the complaint alleges that on or about May 8, 1998, VWK filed a Schedule 14D-1 and Offer to Purchase and commenced, on behalf of ARCO, ARCO's tender offer for all of the shares of Union Texas common stock for $29.00 per share (the "Tender Offer"). Union Texas concurrently filed and disseminated its 14D-9 Statement, representing that the Company's Board of Directors had unanimously determined that terms of the Merger Agreement were "fair" and allegedly in the best interest of the Company's shareholders, and affirmatively recommended that the Company's shareholders tender their shares at the agreed upon price. On or about June 16, 1998, after certain extensions, ARCO announced that the Tender Offer had been completed and that approximately 84.69 million shares, or 99%, of Union Texas' common stock had been caused to be tendered. ARCO accepted the tendered shares for payment and became indirectly a 99% owner of Union Texas.

On or about June 29, 1998, ARCO implemented the merger of Union Texas and VWK, converting each outstanding share of Union Texas common stock into $29.00 in cash (the "Merger"). As of this date, Union Texas ceased to exist as an independently traded company, becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of ARCO.

Plaintiffs allege that the 14D-9 Statement was materially false or misleading and thus violative of Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14e-3(a) promulgated thereunder, as defendants failed to disclose, inter alia, the following material information: (a) the estimated or anticipated output from such Company assets as the Britannia Field, the Boqueron Unit, and the DZO unit, and the impact of their significant new production and reserve increases on the operating cash flow, earnings or share price of Union Texas; (b) that Union Texas was engaged in potentially profitable exploration opportunities in Azerbaijan, Kazakstan, and China that could have added significant value to the Company's net worth; (c) the probable and possible reserves of Union Texas or any Company projections of future results; (d) a description of or facts evidencing the method or manner by which the $29.00 Tender Offer Price was established; (e) any description of the presentations, analyses, and/or the assumptions made by Salomon Smith Barney and Petrie Parkman & Co., Inc., the Union Texas's financial advisors to the transaction; and (f) the details and/or comparative value of two alternative business combinations which were proposed to Union Texas by third parties not involved in the Tender Offer. The complaint alleges that in direct reliance on the materially false or misleading 14D-9 Statement, plaintiffs and the other Union Texas shareholders tendered their shares for $29.00 in cash, an artificially deflated and wholly inadequate price. By virtue of the foregoing material misrepresentations and omissions, plaintiffs and other members of the Class have been damaged and are entitled to appropriate relief.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 1311
Sector: Utilities
Industry: Natural Gas Utilities

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Union Texas Petroleum Holdings, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	UTH [DELISTED]
COMPANY WEBSITE:

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Byron S. Squyres, et al. v. John L. Whitmire, et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-06085
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Lourdes G. Baird
DATE FILED: 07/28/1998	SOURCE: Other
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/30/1998	CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Byron S. Squyres, et al. v. John L. Whitmire, et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-06085
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Margaret M. Morrow
DATE FILED: 12/17/1998	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/30/1998	CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Order Granting Defendant's Motion To Dismiss
Type: Order		Date on the document: 07/14/1999
Order Dismissing Civil Action
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/23/1999
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/25/2000

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

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

�