Westar Energy, Inc. : Common Stock and Western Resources Capital I Cumulative Quarterly Income

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

Westar Energy, Inc. : Common Stock and Western Resources Capital I Cumulative Quarterly Income Conclusion: By the Order and Final Judgment entered on September 1, 2005, the Settlement and the Plan of Allocation are approved. Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel is awarded 30% of the Settlement Fund in fees and $226,877.21 in reimbursement of expenses. The Action is dismissed with prejudice.

According to a press release dated April 15, 2005, Westar Energy, Inc. has reached an agreement in principle to settle pending shareholder securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits related to actions that occurred under former management. Under the terms of the settlement, the company will make a payment of $1.25 million and the company's insurance carriers will make a payment of $31.25 million.

As reported by the Company's FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on July 15, 2003. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 29, 2000, the date the company announced its intention to separate its electric utility operations from our unregulated businesses, and November 8, 2002, the date the KCC (Kansas Corporation Commission) issued an order prohibiting the separation. The complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations, or omitting material facts, concerning the purpose and benefits of the proposed separation, the compensation of the Company's senior management and the independence and functioning of its board of directors and that as a result the Company artificially inflated the price of its common stock. The consolidated complaint accuses Westar of making financial reports in direct violation of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) "in order to maintain an appearance of prospering performance and favorable financial results."

The original complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market between March 31, 2001 and December 26, 2002. Specifically, the original complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that the Company had engaged in certain trades that may have violated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") affiliate transaction rules, specifically that these transactions involved power sales from one Cleco Corporation ("Cleco") (NYSE:CNL) affiliate to Westar and then back to another or the same Cleco affiliate, these transactions totaled approximately $3.4 million in 2000, $12.6 million in 2001 and $3.8 million in 2002; and (ii) further as a result of a improper accounting practices regarding Westar's approximately 88% ownership of Protection One (NYSE:POI), a provider of property monitoring services, including electronic monitoring and maintenance of alarm systems, first and second quarter 2002 financial earning results had to be re-audited and restated.

The complaint further alleges that on December 26, 2002, the last day of the Class Period, Westar announced in a press release that it had received a subpoena from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on December 16, 2002, and that in addition to seeking details on trades with Cleco and its affiliates, FERC also requested documents concerning power transactions between Westar's system and marketing operations, and information on power trades in which Westar or other trading companies acted as intermediaries.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 4931
Sector: Utilities
Industry: Electric Utilities

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Westar Energy, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	WR
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.wstnres.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Howard B. Kahn, et al. v. Westar Energy Inc., et al.

COURT: D. Kansas	DOCKET NUMBER: 03-CV-4003
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Sam A. Crow
DATE FILED: 01/14/2003	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/31/2001	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/26/2002
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
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 Brodsky & Smith, LLC 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.668.7987., (fax) 610.660.0450, esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR) P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438 (voice) 501.312.8500, (fax) 501.312.8505, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.983.9330, (fax) 212.983.9331, Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202 (voice) 410.332.0030, (fax) , pivenlaw@erols.com Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) , Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 7

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Westar Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: D. Kansas	DOCKET NUMBER: 03-CV-4003
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Julie A. Robinson
DATE FILED: 07/15/2003	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/29/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/08/2002
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Schoengold & Sporn PC 233 Broadway 39Th Floor, New York, NY, 10279 (voice) 212.964.0046, (fax) , The law firm of Swanson Midgley LLC 2420 Pershing Road. Suite 400, Kansas City, MO, 64108-2505 (voice) 816.842.6100, (fax) 816.842.6100, mail@swansonmidgley.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/15/2003
Stipulation And Agreement Of Compromise, Settlement And Release
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 05/31/2005
Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action, Proposed Settlement Of Thirty Million Dollars, Motion For Settlement Hearing And Application For Attorneys’ Fees
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 06/06/2005
Proof of Claim and Release
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/06/2005
Order and Final Judgment
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/01/2005
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 01/13/2006

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Mark Epstein
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/24/2003

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

�