 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
NAHC, Inc. (nf/k/a Novacare, Inc. ) Summary: According to the docket posted, on October 25, 2002, the Court entered the Order from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the District Court’s October 17, 2001 Order dismissing the case.
As disclosed by the Company’s FORM 10-Q For The Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2002, on October 17, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the Brady case against the Company with prejudice. The plaintiff has appealed this decision and filed their most recent reply brief on April 25, 2002.
Six similar actions have been filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, including one that alleges a class period from May 20, 1998 through November 22, 1999. They have been consolidated into a single action. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is named as a defendant in the case. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Company and certain of its directors and officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading tatements and omissions regarding the prospects of NAHC's business and NAHC's liquidation value and by failing timely to disclose the impact of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 on the long term care services business. The Plaintiffs allege that these statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of the Company's stock during the class period. The Plaintiffs also assert a violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 against the Company and individual Defendants as well as against Wasserstein Perella & Co. in connection with the Company's proxy statements dated August 13, 1999, as amended through September 10, 1999. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were negligent in disseminating the proxy statements, which allegedly contained materially statements. Wasserstein Perella & Co. has notified the Company that it will seek indemnification from the Company in connection with this action, pursuant to its engagement agreement with the Company.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 8093
Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Healthcare Facilities
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | NAHC, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | NAHC |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Jack Brady, et al. v. NAHC, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: NAHC, Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 2/20/2001 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 02/14/2006 | ||
| 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