Jarden 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

Jarden Corporation Summary: The original Complaint alleges that Jarden and its CEO violated the federal securities laws in connection with a scheme to convert hundreds of millions of dollars of convertible stock to common stock, and earn defendant, the company’s CEO, tens of millions of dollars in restricted stock compensation. Specifically, it is asserted that the company’s CEO misrepresented the business situation and potential of the Holmes Group, Inc. when that company was acquired by Jarden at the beginning of the Class Period. This caused the stock to rise substantially, triggering the personal benefits to the CEO. On January 11, 2006 Jarden announced that Holmes' profit margins and product mix were not what the market had been led to expect. On this news, Jarden's stock fell substantially.

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, in January and February 2006, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain Company officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the period from June 29, 2005 (the date the Company announced the signing of the agreement to acquire Holmes) through January 11, 2006. The complaints, which are substantially similar to one another, allege, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company relating to the expected benefits of the THG Acquisition. Joint lead plaintiffs were appointed on June 9, 2006. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on August 25, 2006 naming the Company, the Company’s Consumer Solutions segment and certain officers of the Company as defendants (collectively “Defendants”) and containing substantially the same allegations as in the initial complaints. On October 20, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On July 3, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2007, the court granted Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, but reaffirmed its May 31, 2007 denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants answered the amended consolidated complaint on July 10, 2007. On September 10, 2007, Plaintiffs moved for class certification. On March 6, 2008, the Court issued an opinion certifying a class comprised of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the period from June 29, 2005 through January 11, 2006.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, pursuant to the settlement reached on November 20, 2008, which is subject to court approval, the Company’s insurance carriers will pay $8 million into a settlement fund and the Defendants will obtain full releases from all claims in connection with the litigation. The plaintiffs’ counsel will seek a portion of the settlement fund to cover attorneys’ fees and expenses. On January 28, 2009, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a final settlement hearing for May 18, 2009.

On May 18, 2009, the Court approved the settlement and the plan of allocation and awarded attorney's fees and expenses. The action was dismissed with prejudice.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 5190
Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Fabricated Plastic & Rubber

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Jarden Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	JAH
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.jardencorp.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden Corporation, et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 06-CV-00722
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Charles L. Brieant
DATE FILED: 01/31/2006	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/29/2005	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/11/2006
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 Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City) 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 (voice) 405-235-1560, (fax) , wfederman@aol.com Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. 60 Park Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.838.3221, (fax) , gray@cjgraylaw.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 Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, Paskowitz & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY, 10165 (voice) 212.685.0969, (fax) 212.685.2306, classattorney@aol.com Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York) 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000 , New York, NY, 10118 (voice) , (fax) , classattorney@pipeline.com Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106 (voice) 800.797.5499, (fax) 860.493.6290, sn06106@AOL.com Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 10

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/31/2006
Stipulation Of Settlement
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 01/20/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Jarden Corporation Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 06-CV-00722
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 08/25/2006	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/29/2005	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/11/2006
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, 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: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/25/2006
Memorandum And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 05/31/2007
Memorandum And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/05/2007
Memorandum and Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/06/2008
Notice Of Pendency And Proposed Settlement Of Class Action
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 01/28/2009
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement And Providing For Notice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 01/28/2009
Proof Of Claim And Release
Type: Other		Date on the document: 01/28/2009
Final Judgment And Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 05/18/2009
Order Awarding Co-Lead Counsel's Attorneys' Fees And Expenses And Reimbursement Of Lead Plaintiffs' Time And Expenses
Type: Order Approving AF&E		Date on the document: 05/18/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/21/2009

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Chris Whitemyer, et al. v. Jarden Corporation, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/06/2006
Class Action Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: John Robinson, et al. v. Jarden Corporation, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/07/2006

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

�