Accredo Health, 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

Accredo Health, Inc. Summary: The original Complaint alleges 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 material misrepresentations to the market between June 16, 2002 and April 7, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Accredo common stock. The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (a) that the Company was failing to timely record an impairment in the value of certain receivables that it had acquired in a recent acquisition. As a result, the Company's reported financial results were artificially inflated throughout the Class Period; (b) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements published during the Class Period were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and were therefore materially false and misleading; (c) that the Company would not have been able to meet its stated earnings guidance had it properly reserved for its accounts receivables; and (d) based on (a)-(c), defendants' earnings guidance and positive statements concerning the Company was lacking in a reasonable and therefore materially false and misleading. On April 8, 2002, prior to the opening of the market, Accredo shocked the market by announcing that it was reducing its previously issued earning guidance and that it was examining the adequacy of reserves for accounts receivables that it acquired in a recent acquisition. In response to this announcement, the price of Accredo Health common stock declined precipitously falling from $25.40 per share to as low as $13.76 per share, on extremely heavy volume. During the Class Period, Accredo insiders sold more than $12 million worth of their personally-held Accredo stock while in possession of the true facts about the Company. As summarized by a law firm’s web site, additional cases were filed on behalf of investors. On June 9, 2003, motions were made for appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel. On June 19, 2003, the Court consolidated the various actions and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. On July 2, 2003, the Court vacated the June 19 order consolidating the cases and appointing lead plaintiff and counsel. The cases remained consolidated. In an order dated June 23, 2004, the Court reappointed lead plaintiff and counsel. On September 15, 2004, a consolidated complaint was filed, and defendants later filed a motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2005, the judge denied the motion to dismiss. On May 16, 2005, Defendants filed an answer to the consolidated complaint. On July 22, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The court has yet to rule on this matter.

On March 7, 2006, a Report and Recommendations was filed recommending that the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be granted. On April 19, 2006, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Bernice B. Donald adopting the Report and Recommendations.

Discovery is still in progress as of August 7, 2008. Plaintiffs filed a motion for Partial Summary Judgment on May 9, 2008. Ruling on the motion is still pending. Accredo filed its own motion for Summary Judgment on May 16, 2008.

On October 8, 2008, parties filed a motion for settlement, which the judge preliminarily approved on November 20. The settlement consists of a $33 million cash payment to the class in exchange for full dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. Final approval was granted on February 19, 2009.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 8090
Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Healthcare Facilities

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Accredo Health, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	ACDO
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.accredohealth.com/

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Joan Ferrari, et al. v. Accredo Health, Inc., et al.

COURT: W.D. Tennessee	DOCKET NUMBER: 03-CV-02216
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Jon P. McCalla
DATE FILED: 04/08/2003	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/16/2002	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/07/2003
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York) 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.889.3700, (fax) , info@abbeygardy.com Barrett, Johnston & Parsley 217 Second Avenue, N, Nashville, TN, 37201 (voice) 615.244.2202, (fax) , Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, Chitwood & Harley LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309 (voice) 888.873.3999, (fax) 404.873.4476, info@chitwoodlaw.com Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.983.9330, (fax) 212.983.9331, Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 212.907.0700, (fax) 212.818.0477, info@glrslaw.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 (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC , Chicago, IL, (voice) 800-470-6824, (fax) 312-621-1750, Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego) 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 215.496.0300, (fax) 215.496.6611, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 10

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Order Regarding Appointment Of Co-Lead Plaintiffs And Co-Lead Counsel
Type: Order		Date on the document: 6/30/2004

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Accredo Health, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: W.D. Tennessee	DOCKET NUMBER: 03-CV-02216
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Bernice B. Donald
DATE FILED: 09/15/2004	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/16/2002	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/07/2003
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY) 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York, NY, 10019 (voice) 212.554.1400, (fax) 212.554.1444, blbg@blbglaw.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Report And Recommendation
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/07/2006
Order Adopting Report And Recommendation
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/19/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 7/15/2008
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 10/08/2008
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement And Providing For Notice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/20/2008
Final Judgment And Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/19/2009
Order Approving Plan Of Allocation Of Settlement Proceeds
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/19/2009
Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees & Expenses
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/19/2009

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Miles
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/10/2003
Class Action Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Law
Case Name and/or Number: Sved, et al. v. Accredo Health, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 05/14/2003

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

�