Thane International Inc. : Reliant Interactive Media Corporation

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

Thane International Inc. : Reliant Interactive Media Corporation Conclusion: The case was originally filed in Superior Court and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Notice of Removal dated October 23, 2002.

The complaint charges Thane and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 alleging the defendants made misrepresentations in connection with a securities offering. Specifically, the case is a merger transaction in which the shareholders of Reliant Interactive Media Corp. received shares of Thane International, Inc. The plaintiffs contend that the prospectus distributed to Reliant shareholders contained a material misstatement of fact because Thane did not list its stock on the NASDAQ National Market System following the merger.

On June 19, 2003, the case was intra-district transferred to the Southern Division of the U.S. Court for the Central District of California and reassigned to Judge James V. Selna by the Order dated June 6, 2003.

According to a press release dated June 8, 2005, Thane International, Inc., has won the verdict in a shareholder suit when U.S. District Judge James Selna of Santa Ana, California ruled in its favor last week. In recent years, few firms have been willing to challenge class action suits brought by shareholders in court, in part because of fears of anti-business hostility in the post-Enron era. Since Congress amended the securities laws at the end of 1995, only six cases nationwide have actually made it all the way to a verdict. The vast majority of such cases settle for millions of dollars. Part of what also makes the Thane case so unusual is that the statute under which the class was suing holds the company strictly liable for even innocent misrepresentations, eliminating the principal defense used in most securities cases.

On July 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the trial verdict in favor of the defendants. On November 26, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion reversing and remanding the action back to District Court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, to address loss causation, and to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On December 5, 2008, the defendants filed a Motion for Judgment On Loss Causation and a Motion for Judgment On Lack Of Control Person Liability And Good Faith Defenses. On March 17, 2009, Judge James V. Selna granted the defendants’ Motion for Judgment On Loss Causation but denied the Motion for Judgment On Lack Of Control Person Liability And Good Faith Defenses. Judgment was entered on March 25, 2009. The next day, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the Judgment in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In an article dated August 12, 2010, the Ninth Circuit – in its second crack at the case – affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit’s August 9, 2010 opinion in the Thane International securities class action lawsuit affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment for the defendants on the issue of loss causation. [...] In its latest opinion, the Ninth Circuit quickly rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the appellate court’s prior ruling that the prospectus misrepresentation "foreclosed" the defendants’ reliance on the loss causation defense. The Ninth Circuit found that materiality and loss causation are separate issues, and the question whether investors would find information important (materiality) is different than the question whether a particular misstatement actually resulted in a loss (loss causation). Even if the "two inquiries are related" that "does not mean they are the same."

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 5961
Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Catalog & Mail Order)

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Thane International Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	THAN
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.thaneinc.com/

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Howard Miller, et al. v. Thane International Inc., et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 02-CV-01156
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Virginia A. Phillips
DATE FILED: 10/23/2002	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/21/2001	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/26/2002
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Glancy and Binkow 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310-201-9150, (fax) , info@glancylaw.com Wechsler Harwood LLP 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.935.7400, (fax) , info@whhf.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 09/23/2002
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/19/2003

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Howard Miller, et al. v. Thane International, Inc., et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 03-CV-01031
JUDGE NAME: Hon. James V. Selna
DATE FILED: 06/19/2003	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/21/2001	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/26/2002
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
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 Wechsler Harwood LLP 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.935.7400, (fax) , info@whhf.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Memorandum of Decision
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 05/31/2005
Memorandum of Decision
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 06/02/2005
Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/10/2005
Civil Minutes - General
Type: Other		Date on the document: 03/17/2009
Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 03/25/2009
Notice Of Appeal
Type: Notice of Appeal		Date on the document: 03/26/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/04/2010

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Name and/or Number: Howard Miller, et al. v. Thane International Inc., et al.
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/26/2007
U.S. Court of Appeals Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Howard Miller, et al. v. Thane International Inc., et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/26/2007
Opinion [from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]
Case Name and/or Number: Howard Miller, et al. v. Thane International Inc., et al.
Type: Other		Date on the document: 08/09/2010
Order
Case Name and/or Number: Howard Miller, et al. v. Thane International, Inc., et al.
Type: Order		Date on the document: 10/04/2010
Mandate
Case Name and/or Number: Howard Miller, et al. v. Thane International, Inc., et al.
Type: Other		Date on the document: 10/12/2010

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

�