Arthur Andersen, LLP : Discovery Zone, Inc. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Litigation Activity Indices

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Arthur Andersen, LLP : Discovery Zone, Inc. Conclusion: According to the Docket dated May 16, 2000, the Court dismisses the lawsuit in its entirety, with prejudice and without costs, except as otherwise provided in the stipulation. The Court authorized payments from the Gross Settlement Fund of Class Counsel in the amounts of $300,000.00 for attorneys' fees and $86,987.86 for costs and expenses, plus interest and $31,155.76 for all costs associated with notice and settlement administration through August 30, 1999 terminating case.

Prior to the Court's dismissal, Notice was sent to the class and there was no opposition to the proposed settlement. For the reasons stated in open court and all of the findings in the proposed order of final judgment of dismissal, the Court recommends to Judge Andersen that he enter the order of final judgment of dismissal in the form proposed by the parties. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolve, the case is returned to the assigned judge.

The Court overruled the objections and adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation. Thus, auditors' motion to dismiss the complaint based on the one-year statute of limitations was denied. The motion to dismiss based on the three-year statute of repose was granted in part and denied in part.

The Court found that the three-year repose period for Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims began to run when auditors made an affirmative misrepresentation. In consequence, claims based on purchases made in reliance on a Form 10-K issued more than three years before suit was filed were barred.

More specifically, purchasers filed a class action against auditors following other purchasers filing of individual actions. The court held that although pleadings filed in related actions and disclosures in SEC Form 10-K filings might have created suspicious circumstances as to auditors' knowledge and activities, these documents did not conclusively provide inquiry notice of auditors' supposed recklessness or intentional misconduct. It was an equally reasonable inference that these documents merely put purchasers on notice that auditors acted only in a negligent manner. The court found that purchasers had inquiry notice of the instant claim against auditors only when they received auditors' work papers, less than one year before they filed this action. The court further held that the repose period was triggered by the alleged misrepresentation rather than by an individual's purchase of a security.

The original Complaint alleges, among other things, that Arthur Andersen, LLP, the outside auditor for Discovery Zone during the Class Period, violated generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") and generally accepted auditing standards ("GAAS") in issuing an unqualified or "clean" audit opinion with respect to Discovery Zone's 1993 and 1994 year-end financial statements.

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

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Arthur Andersen, LLP
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	DVZNE
COMPANY WEBSITE:

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

James B. Antell, et al. v. Arthur Andersen LLP, et al.

COURT: N.D. Illinois	DOCKET NUMBER: 97-CV-3456
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Wayne R. Andersen
DATE FILED: 05/09/1997	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/31/1994	CLASS PERIOD END: 09/15/1995
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2500, San Francisco, CA, 94105 (voice) 415.538.3725, (fax) , Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net 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 Kenneth A. Elan 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago , IL, 60602 (voice) 312782.4880, (fax) , mmiller@millerfauchner.com 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 Zwerling, Schachter, Zwerling & Koppell LLP 767 Third Avenue , New York, NY, 10017 (voice) , (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 6

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
US District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/16/1998
US District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/16/2000
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/03/2001

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

�