Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation : Rickel Home Centers Notes

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

Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation : Rickel Home Centers Notes Conclusion: According to the docket, on April 30, 2002, the Court entered the Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated December 18, 2001. The action was dismissed with prejudice and the case was closed. On June 19, 2002, the Court further entered the Order awarding plaintiff’s counsel 30% of the recovery, or $900,000.00, plus accrued interest on this amount and reimbursement of costs and expenses in the aggregate amount of $230,122.57. Lastly, on April 16, 2003, the Court entered the Order granting the motion for an Order approving the distribution of the Settlement Fund.

By the closing Order, dated January 30, 2001, the Court "SO ORDERED" a stipulation providing for non-binding mediation and a stay of proceedings in the Litigation pending the outcome of the mediation. The amount of the Settlement proposed to be distributed to the members of the Class before deduction of Court-approved attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses is $3,000,000 in cash plus interest as of February 1, 2002.

On April 22, 1999, the action was dismissed for failure of plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel to proceed with the action after the court's Order of December 7, 1998, and for failure of plaintiffs' counsel to pay the $45,000.00 agreed to by the parties in lien of a court imposed sanction. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal and on September 25, 2000, the Court entered the Mandate of the US Court of Appeals affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the district court. The case was reopened.

This securities fraud action stems from allegedly false and misleading information contained in a registration statement and prospectus of Rickel Home Centers ("Rickel"). The Securities and Exchange Commission declared the Rickel prospectus effective on October 28, 1994, for an initial public offering ("IPO") of shares of stock. On November 9, 1994, Baffa purchased shares of Rickel stock for his then minor son Brett and placed them in a Uniform Gifts to Minors Act ("UGMA") account designated Robert Baffa, C/F/A, Brett Baffa, UGMA/NY. Soon after, the price of Rickel stock declined drastically, and Baffa sold the shares at a loss. The complaint alleged principally that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77o, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t, as well as Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, by providing false and misleading financial information in the Rickel prospectus and registration papers. Baffa claimed that defendants failed to disclose in the prospectus four financial indicators - -net sales, gross profit, EBIDTA (the sum of earnings before income tax [operating income] depreciation, and amortization), and operating income (loss) after debt expense - - which reflected a decline in Rickel's business during the third quarter of 1994 and that left it "in an extremely precarious financial condition at the time of the Offering."

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6719
Sector: Financial
Industry: Misc. Financial Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	PRIVATE
COMPANY WEBSITE:

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Robert Baffa, et al. v. Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation, et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-0583
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Barbara S. Jones
DATE FILED: 01/26/1996	SOURCE: Complaint
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/28/1994	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/15/1995
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Rabin & Garland 275 Madison Ave - 34th Flr, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.682.1818, (fax) , Rabin & Peckel LLP 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.682.1818, (fax) 212.682.1892, email@rabinlaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/25/2000

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In re Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-0583
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Constance B. Motley
DATE FILED: 11/14/1997	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/28/1994	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/15/1995
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.682.1818, (fax) 212.682.1892, email@murrayfrank.com Rabin & Garland 275 Madison Ave - 34th Flr, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.682.1818, (fax) , Rabin & Peckel LLP 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.682.1818, (fax) 212.682.1892, email@rabinlaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/14/1997
Proof Of Claim Form
Type: Other		Date on the document: 05/21/2002
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/15/2003

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

�