Company and Case Information

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


Assisted Living Concepts
Conclusion: According to the latest docket, on March 31, 2003, the Court entered the Final Distribution Order and the Final Judgment regarding the KPMG Settlement. The case is closed.

As stated in the Notice of Settlement of the Class Action against KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, dated March 19, 2002, plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of the Class, entered into a proposed settlement of this action that will resolve all claims of the plaintiffs and the Class against defendant KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP. The Settlement is in addition to the $30,000,000 partial settlement previously reached with Assisted Living Concepts and other defendants named in the action. The KPMG Settlement will create a settlement fund that totals $13,500,000 in cash, plus interest. The court has not yet approved this settlement.

On September 29, 2000, all parties filed the Stipulation of Settlement between the plaintiffs and certain Settling Defendants. On November 30, 2000, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment by U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken. The Stipulation of Settlement was approved action was dismissed with prejudice without costs to any party. The case continued as to defendant KPMG Peat Marwick LLP.

Beginning on February 1, 1999, 12 separate complaints were been filed against the Company and certain officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. On July 23, 1999, a consolidated complaint was filed in connection with this litigation. The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of our common stock from July 28, 1997 through March 31, 1999 and on behalf of a class of purchasers of our 6.0% Debentures and 5.625% Debentures from the date of issuance through March 31, 1999. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages. It also names as additional defendants certain of our directors that were not named previously, as well as our independent auditors (solely in connection with our 1998 offering of 5.625% Debentures) and the underwriters in connection with our 1997 offering of 6.0% Debentures.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 8052
Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Healthcare Facilities


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Assisted Living Concepts
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: ALF
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.alcco.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Gesten, et al. v. Assisted Living Concepts, et al.
 COURT: D. Oregon  DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-00160
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Ann L. Aiken
 DATE FILED: 2/2/1999  SOURCE: Business Wires
 CLASS PERIOD START: 7/28/1997  CLASS PERIOD END: 2/1/1999
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco)
      595 Market Street, Suite 2500, San Francisco, CA, 94105
       (voice) 415.538.3725, (fax) ,
  • Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego, CA)
      12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA, 92130
       (voice) 858.793.0070, (fax) 858.793.0323, blbg@blbglaw.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  2

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 07/05/2000
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 05/23/2002

    REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    In re Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. Securities Litigation
     COURT: D. Oregon  DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-00167
     JUDGE NAME: Hon. Ann L. Aiken
     DATE FILED: 7/23/1999  SOURCE: Business Wires
     CLASS PERIOD START: 3/27/1997  CLASS PERIOD END: 1/29/1999
     TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Consolidated
     PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY)
      1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York, NY, 10019
       (voice) 212.554.1400, (fax) 212.554.1444, blbg@blbglaw.com
  • Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
      3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
       (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com
  • Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Schlachter
      209 South West Oak Street, Portland , OR, 97204
       (voice) 503.227.1600, (fax) 503.227.6840, info@ssbls.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  3

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 99-CV-167
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 07/05/1999
    Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 07/23/1999
    Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Partial Settlement Class Action and Settlement Hearing
    Type: Notice Date on the document: 10/05/2000
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 10/13/2000
    Notice Of Proposed Settlement Of Class Action Against KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP And Settlement Hearing
    Type: Notice Date on the document: 03/19/2002
    Summary Notice Of Settlement Of Class Action Against KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP
    Type: Notice Date on the document: 03/19/2002
    Final Distribution Order And Final Judgment Re KPMG Settlement
    Type: Order Date on the document: 03/31/2003
    US District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 5/24/2006

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Class Action Allegation Complaint
    Case Name and/or Number: Weinroth, et al. v. Assisted Living Concepts, et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 02/02/1999

    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