Plains All American Pipeline LP - 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

Plains All American Pipeline LP Conclusion: According to the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, the Company and Plains Resources reached an agreement with representatives for the plaintiffs for the settlement of all of the class actions, and in January 2001, the Company deposited approximately $30.0 million under the terms of the settlement agreement. The total cost of the settlement to the Company and Plains Resources, including interest and expenses and after insurance reimbursements, was $14.9 million. Of that amount, $1.0 million was allocated to Plains Resources by agreement between special independent committees of the board of directors of the Company’s former general partner and the board of directors of Plains Resources. All such amounts were reflected in the Company’s financial statements at December 31, 2000. The settlement was approved by the court on December 19, 2001. The order became final on January 18, 2002.

As reported by the same SEC filing, on November 29, 1999, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas entitled Di Giacomo v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., et al. The suit alleged that Plains All American and certain of its former general partner's officers and directors violated federal securities laws, primarily in connection with unauthorized trading by a former employee. An additional nineteen cases were filed in the Southern District of Texas, some of which named the Company’s former general partner and Plains Resources as additional defendants. All of the federal securities claims were consolidated into two actions. The first consolidated action is that filed by purchasers of Plains Resources' common stock and options, and is captioned Koplovitz v. Plains Resources Inc., et al. The second consolidated action is that filed by purchasers of the Company’s common units, and is captioned Di Giacomo v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., et al. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were liable for securities fraud violations under Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for making false registration statements under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The original Complaint charges that Plains violated sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint specifically alleges that Plains issued materially false and misleading statements about its business and its internal policies. The securities markets were shocked when the Company announced on November 29, 1999 that it expects to take a $160 million loss as the result of so-called "unauthorized trading" by an employee in its crude oil trading operations. Plains' common stock price plummeted approximately 50% in response to the disclosure of this massive loss.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 4610
Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil Well Services & Equipment

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Plains All American Pipeline LP
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	PAA
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.plainsallamerican.com/

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Pasquale Di Giacomo, et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline LP, et al.

COURT: S.D. Texas	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-04137
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal
DATE FILED: 11/29/1999	SOURCE: Notice
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/17/1998	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/29/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
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: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Original Complaint--Class Action
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/29/1999
Order Appointing The Plains All American Plaintiffs Group As Lead Plaintiff Pursuant To §21D(a)(3)(B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 And Approving Lead Plaintiff’s Choice Of Counsel
Type: Order		Date on the document: 05/01/2000

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Plains All American Pipeline LP Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. Texas	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-04137
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal
DATE FILED: 07/14/2000	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/17/1998	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/29/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY) 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 800.217.1522, (fax) , info@bernlieb.com Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (former New York, NY) 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.687.1980, (fax) 212.687.7714, info@kaplanfox.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 _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/19/2001
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 12/19/2001

OTHER DOCUMENTS
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Goldhirsch, et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline LP, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 12/19/2001

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

�