Adecco S.A. - 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

Adecco S.A. Summary: According to an article dated November 26, 2007, shareholders of Swiss employment firm Adecco SA have lost a bid to overturn a federal judge's summary dismissal of their amended securities fraud suit, with an appeals court ruling the plaintiffs had failed to prove their case. In a decision issued Tuesday, the appeals court affirmed a California district judge's decision to toss the lawsuit with prejudice for its inadequate showing of claims that the company and its executives scammed investors by understating its bad debts.

On April 25, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the March 29, 2006 Judgment dismissing the action. The appeal is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to a press release dated April 4, 2006, the Adecco Group, the worldwide leader in Human Resource services, is pleased to announce that the amended class action complaint filed against Adecco S.A. and certain of its current and former directors and officers has been dismissed. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice and without further leave to amend and directed that judgment be entered in favour of the defendant. Unless the plaintiffs file an appeal within 30 days the judgment will become final.

In a press release dated November 16, 2005, after the pending consolidated class action complaint filed against the company and certain of its directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California was dismissed without prejudice, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

In a press release dated May 19, 2005, Adecco announced that the pending consolidated class action complaint filed against the company and certain of its directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has been dismissed. The Court's order dismisses the complaint without prejudice and grants plaintiffs leave to replead within 45 days.

In a press release dated March 8, 2005, the staff of the US Securities and Exchange Commission has notified Adecco SA that its investigation of the Group has been terminated and that no enforcement action has been recommended.

On May 26, 2004, the Court entered the Stipulation and Order transferring the New York actions to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

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, thereby artificially inflating the price of Adecco common stock. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing financial performance. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company; (2) more specifically, that the Company's North American operations had material weaknesses in its internal controls; and (3) as a result, the values of the Company's net income and financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants caused Adecco to report in its public filings, press releases and other public statements favorable financial results by, among other things, artificially inflating the Company's revenue and earnings by improper accounting practices. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on January 12, 2004, Adecco shocked the market when it announced that it did not expect the audit of its consolidated financial statements for the 2003 fiscal year, ended on December 28, 2003, to be completed by Adecco's auditors, by the previously announced release date of February 4, 2004. The Company identified the following reasons for the delay: i) the identification of material weaknesses in internal controls in the Company's North American operations of Adecco Staffing; ii) the resolution of possible accounting, control and compliance issues in the Company's operations in certain countries; and iii) the completion of the Company's efforts to address these matters and determine their effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements. In response to this announcement, the prices of all Adecco securities dropped sharply, with Adecco shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange tumbling more than 30%, or $5.23 per share, to close at $11.70 per share on extremely heavy volume.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7363
Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Adecco S.A.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	ADO
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.adecco.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Mund, et al. v. Adecco S.A., et al.

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-184
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Arthur D. Spatt
DATE FILED: 01/16/2004	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/16/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/09/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Brian Felgoise 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Philadelphia, PA, 19102 (voice) 215.735.6810, (fax) 215/735.5185., Brodsky & Smith, LLC 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.668.7987., (fax) 610.660.0450, esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Bull & Lifshitz 18 East 41st St., New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 212.213.6222, (fax) 212.213.9405, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC) 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005 (voice) 202.408.4600, (fax) 202.408.4699, lawinfo@cmht.com Glancy and Binkow 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310-201-9150, (fax) , info@glancylaw.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 Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego) 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 215.496.0300, (fax) 215.496.6611, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY) The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126 (voice) 212.682.3025, (fax) 212.682.3010, info@wyca.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 10

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/16/2004
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 07/20/2004

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Alaska Electrical, et al. v. Adecco S.A., et al.

COURT: S.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-129
JUDGE NAME: Hon. M. J. Lorenz
DATE FILED: 07/05/2005	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/16/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/09/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego, CA) 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA, 92130 (voice) 858.793.0070, (fax) 858.793.0323, blbg@blbglaw.com 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, info@csgrr.com/ Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco) 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111 (voice) 415.288.4545, (fax) 415.288.4534, info@lerachlaw.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 206.749.5544, (fax) 206.749.9978, info@lerachlaw.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: 5

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/05/2005
Order: (1) Granting Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint; (2) Dismissing Amended Complaint With Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/29/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 12/17/2007

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Taubenfeld
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/16/2004
Class Action Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/20/2004

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

�