Mannatech, 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

Mannatech, Inc. Summary: After the Settlement Fairness Hearing adjourned, the judge entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal, approving the settlement and terminating the case on March 10, 2009.

On December 12, 2008 the judge preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and set a Settlement Fairness Hearing for March 10, 2009.

On November 19, 2008 the lead plaintiff submitted a Stipulation of Settlement and a motion for preliminary approval of the agreement. Stated in the agreement, defendants will pay $11,250,000 for the release of claims and counsel will apply for fees up to 30% of the settlement fund and reimbursement of $250,000 in expenses.

According to a press release dated September 23, 2008, Mannatech, Inc., reached a tentative settlement in the securities class action lawsuit styled "Jonathan Crowell v. Mannatech, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:07 CV-00238-K," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Despite the announced agreement to settle, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Consolidated Complaint against all defendants on April 3, 2008. No additional filings have been made as of August 29, 2008 and no additional information regarding the settlement has been made available.

According to a press release dated March 20, 2008, Mannatech, Incorporated announced that the Company and counsel for the lead plaintiff have reached a settlement in the securities class action lawsuit styled Jonathan Crowell v. Mannatech, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-00238-K, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ("the litigation"). The litigation is the consolidation of three securities class action complaints filed against Mannatech, Incorporated, and certain of its officers and directors in August and September 2005. The settlement class consists of the purchasers of Mannatech stock during the period August 10, 2004 through July 30, 2007. This settlement, which is subject to among other things preliminary and final Court approval, would resolve all the claims in the litigation. Without admitting any liability or wrongdoing of any kind, the Company has agreed to authorize payment to the plaintiff class of $11.25 million. This settlement payment would be funded by both the Company' s insurer and the Company itself. Because the litigation is a class action, the settlement is subject to the preliminary approval of the Court as well as the Court' s final approval after notice of the terms of the settlement has been provided to all class members.

In a press release dated July 17, 2007, on July 12, 2007, as a result of the July 5, 2007 disclosure of the Texas Attorney General complaint and the July 6, 2007 stock drop, Lerach Coughlin filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud (the “Second Amended Complaint”), which included additional claims in connection with these events. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of Mannatech common stock between the period of August 10, 2004 through July 5, 2007.

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, three lawsuits were initially filed in the District of New Mexico and consolidated on December 12, 2005 into the civil action styled “In re Mannatech, Incorporated Securities Litigation.” The Mannatech Group, consisting of Mr. Austin Chang, Ms. Naomi S. Miller, Mr. John Ogden, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, has been appointed as lead plaintiffs, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP has been appointed as lead counsel and Claxton & Hill, PLLC has been appointed local counsel, for the putative class. On January 29, 2007, the Court in the District of New Mexico granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. On March 9, 2007, an unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud was filed by lead plaintiffs for the putative class. The Amended Consolidated Complaint proposed by the lead plaintiffs is substantively similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on March 3, 2006. Lead plaintiffs allege the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by artificially inflating the value of the Company’s common stock by knowingly allowing independent contractors to recklessly misrepresent the efficacy of its products during the purported class period. The Amended Complaint expands the class period, as alleged in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, to October 27, 2006, and also adds new allegations based on news reports of potential regulatory or enforcement actions by the State of Texas involving selling and promotional activities of the Company and/or its independent associates. The Company is required to answer or move to dismiss the Amended Complaint by May 21, 2007.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed against Mannatech and a certain officer charging the defendants with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims defendants issued false or misleading statements concerning the Company's business and operations, which caused Mannatech's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Mannatech operates in the field of "glyconutrients" and designs and develops proprietary nutritional supplements, topical products and weight management products, sold primarily by purportedly independent sales associates and members through a network-marketing system -- commonly known as "multilevel marketing." The Complaint alleges Mannatech failed to adequately supervise and/or monitor the conduct of its associates, including those who maintain websites that prominently display misleading testimonials and/or falsely suggest that Mannatech products are effective in the treatment and prevention of certain specific diseases. The Complaint alleges that, unbeknownst to public investors, the true facts which defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose to the investing public during the Class Period, included: (i) that the Company's internal controls were inadequate, and failed in several key aspects, resulting in inadequate monitoring and supervision of the Company's associates; (ii) as a consequence of defendants' failure to supervise, Mannatech associates made false and unfounded claims concerning the efficacy of the Company's products; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements with respect to Mannatech's operations, performance and prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

The complaint further alleges that on or around May 9, 2005, an article published in Barron's revealed the misleading nature of claims made on certain Mannatech associates' websites. This new shocked the market, causing the price of Mannatech shares to plummet more than 26 percent in one day, thereby damaging investors. The next day, May 10, 2005, Mannatech shares fell an additional 19 percent as a result of this news.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 2833
Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Mannatech, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	MTEX
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.mannatech.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Jonathan Crowell, et al. v. Mannatech, Inc., et al.

COURT: D. New Mexico	DOCKET NUMBER: 05-CV-829
JUDGE NAME: Hon. James A. Parker
DATE FILED: 08/01/2005	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/10/2004	CLASS PERIOD END: 05/08/2005
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City) 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 (voice) 405-235-1560, (fax) , wfederman@aol.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 Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. Esquire at 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046 (voice) 215.886.1900, (fax) , securitiesfraud@comcast.net 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 (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 & Schulman LLP (New York) One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) 212.868.1229, info@milbergweiss.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 Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106 (voice) 800.797.5499, (fax) 860.493.6290, sn06106@AOL.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 8

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/31/2005
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/03/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 01/31/2007
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 01/31/2007

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Jonathan Crowell, et al. v. Mannatech, Inc., et al.

COURT: N.D. Texas	DOCKET NUMBER: 07-CV-00238
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Ed Kinkeade
DATE FILED: 04/03/2008	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/10/2004	CLASS PERIOD END: 07/30/2007
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Third Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Florida) 197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 20, Boca Raton, FL, 33432 (voice) 561-750-3000, (fax) 561-750-3364, info@csgrr.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/03/2006
Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/12/2007
Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Securities Fraud
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 4/4/2008
Motion For Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement Filed By Jonathan Crowell With Brief/Memorandum In Support
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 11/19/2008
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 11/19/2008
Order Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/12/2008
Final Judgment And Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/10/2009
Order Awarding Plaintiffs' Counsel Attorneys' Fees And Expenses
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/10/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 3/10/2009

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
Case Name and/or Number: Richard McMurry, et al. v. Mannatech, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/30/2001
Class Action Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Michael Bruce Zeller, et al. v. Mannatech, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 09/09/2005

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

�