E.W. Blanch Holdings, Inc. - 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

E.W. Blanch Holdings, Inc. Conclusion: By the Order For Final Judgment entered on June 19, 2003, the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Judgment is entered dismissing the action with prejudice, on the merits. The plan of allocation and attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses is also approved by the Court.

Earlier, on May 4, 2001, the Court entered the Order appointing lead plaintiffs, approving their selection of lead counsel, and establishing a plaintiffs’ executive committee. On May 21, 2001, an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed, and on July 26, 2001, a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed. The defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On May 23, 2002, the Court entered the Order denying the motions to dismiss. On September 6, 2002, the defendants filed motions for partial summary judgment. On December 26, 2002, the Court entered the Order finding the motions for summary judgment moot. Soon after, on April 16, 2003, a Settlement Agreement was filed, and that same day, the judge preliminarily approved the settlement. The settlement fund is in the amount of $20 million.

The original complaint alleges that during the proposed class period, the Company misled investors by stating that it would not likely experience any adverse impact in connection with Unicover. Ultimately, the company revealed that it would be negatively impacted by the Unicover reinsurance scandal and that its earnings per share in the first quarter of 2000 would fall well below projected earnings. The complaint further alleges that during the class period, E. W. Blanch recognized revenue from its Unicover related brokerage business based on one or more reinsurance contracts that were not in force. The market price of the Company's shares plummeted over 60% throughout the day on March 20, 2000, causing significant losses to persons who purchased shares during the class period. The individual defendants sold over $24.7 million in the Company's stock during the proposed class period.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6311
Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Life)

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	E.W. Blanch Holdings, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	EWB
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.blanch.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

[Unknown plaintiff], et al. v. E.W. Blanch Holdings, Inc. , et al.

COURT: D. Minnesota	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-00258
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Michael J. Davis
DATE FILED: 02/12/2001	SOURCE: Notice
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/19/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 03/20/2000
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA) 225 Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92010 (voice) 619.702.7350, (fax) 619.702.7351, Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106 (voice) 800.797.5499, (fax) 860.493.6290, sn06106@AOL.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: E.W. Blanch Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: D. Minnesota	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-00258
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Michael J. Davis
DATE FILED: 07/26/2001	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/19/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 03/20/2000
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended and Consolidated
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 Chestnut & Cambronne, P.A. 222 South Ninth Street, 3700 Piper Jaffray Tower, Minneapolis, MN, 55402 (voice) 612.339.7300, (fax) 612.336.2940, info@chestnutcambronne.com Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 7/26/2001
Order For Final Judgment
Type: Order		Date on the document: 06/16/2003
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/27/2003

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

�