Aon Corporation - 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

Aon Corporation Summary: The original complaint charges Aon Corporation and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Aon, through its various subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, Consulting and Insurance Underwriting.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Aon and its top officers violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements concerning the Company's results and operations. The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) that the Company was receiving illegal and concealed "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal "contingent commission agreements"; (b) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants violated applicable principles of fiduciary law, subjecting the Company to enormous fines and penalties totaling potentially tens -- if not hundreds -- of millions of dollars; and (c) that as a result, Company's prior reported revenue and income was grossly overstated.

The complaint further alleges that on October 14, 2004, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced he had charged several of the nation's largest insurance companies and the largest broker with bid rigging and pay-offs that he claimed violated fraud and competition laws. Upon revelation of these illegal acts, the Company's shares fell to $23.03, a loss of 16%. Then on October 19, 2004, The Wall Street Journal published an article on Spitzer's investigation of Aon, which stated that the reinsurance business, or insurance policies for insurance companies, was the focus of the probe, because Spitzer suspected Aon's insurance-buying clients may not have received the best deal. On these revelations, the Company's shares fell again, from $21.20 to $19.20, a drop of 9%.

On March 24, 2005, Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. granted the motion to consolidate the actions and further granted the motion to appoint the the Local 408 Group as lead plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff’s selection of Lerach Coughlin as Lead Counsel, and Lasky as Liaison Counsel. On May 26, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Complaint, and on August 1, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On February 2 and March 2, 2006, Judge Norgle issued the Opinion and Amended Opinion and Order, respectively, denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On May 12, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class, which was granted on November 8, 2006.

On August 3, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in light of new controlling authority, which was denied by the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on March 5, 2008. The case is currently in the discovery phrase. Jury trial is set for November 2009.

On August 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. That same day, a Stipulation of Settlement was filed. The settlement is in the amount of $30 million in cash. On August 24, 2009, the Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr., signed the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement. The Settlement Hearing is set for November 17, 2009. On September 9, 2009, Judge Norgle issued a revised order preliminarily approving the settlement. On November 24, 2009, the Court entered the Orders approving the plan of allocation, awarding attorneys' fees and expenses and approving the final settlement. The action is dismissed with prejudice.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6321
Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Miscellaneous)

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Aon Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	AOC
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.aon.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

David Roth, et al. v. Aon Corporation, et al.

COURT: N.D. Illinois	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-6835
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Charles R. Norgle Sr.
DATE FILED: 10/25/2004	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/31/2002	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/18/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza) One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119 (voice) 212.279.5050, (fax) 212.279.3655, JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles) 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310.201.915, (fax) 310. 201-916, info@glancylaw.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 Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.682.1818, (fax) 212.682.1892, email@murrayfrank.com Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York) 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 5

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 10/22/2004
Amended Opinion and Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/24/2005
Statement
Type: Order of Consolidation		Date on the document: 03/24/2005

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

David Roth, et al. v. Aon Corporation, et al.

COURT: N.D. Illinois	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-6835
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 05/26/2005	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/03/2003	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/13/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
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 _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 05/26/2005
Opinion And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/02/2006
Amended Opinion And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/02/2006
Opinion And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/08/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/08/2006
Amended Opinion And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/17/2006
Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 01/18/2007
Stipulation of Settlement
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 08/21/2009
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/24/2009
Final Judgment And Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/18/2009
Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees And Expenses
Type: Order Approving AF&E		Date on the document: 11/18/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 12/03/2009

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

�