Centene Corporation - 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

Centene Corporation Summary: The original Complaint alleges that Centene, a healthcare enterprise, and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements. Specifically, defendants assured investors that its costs were under control, and that the only market where there was any concern related to pharmacy costs was Indiana and to a limited degree Ohio. The defendants reported that cost trends were improving in Indiana and Ohio. In June 2006, defendants reaffirmed that there were no surprises. Thereafter in late June 2006, Goldman Sachs announced that based on its discussions with Centene, its management had strong confidence in its guidance for the second quarter of 2006 and for the remainder of 2006, and that cost trend issues remained manageable. The complaint further alleges that on or around July 18, 2006, defendants announced that 2006 second quarter results would be far below prior guidance, and that results for the remainder of 2006 would not meet guidance. The huge shortfall was caused by additional medical costs incurred in Indiana and Texas. On this news, Centene shares dropped from $21.04 to $13.44.

On November 2, 2006, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry granting the motion to consolidate the two related securities class action under 4:06CV1142. On November 17, 2006, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to appoint lead plaintiff and approve his selection of lead and liaison counsel. The plaintiffs shall filed a consolidated amended complaint on or before January 17, 2007. On January 17, 2007, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed, and on February 16, 2007, the defendants responded by filing a Joint Motion to Dismiss The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On June 29, 2007, the motion to dismiss was granted and the case was dismissed. On July 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On October 16, 2008, the District Court entered the Opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. According to the Opinion and Judgment, the judgment of the district court in this cause is affirmed.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6324
Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Accident & Health)

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Centene Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	CNC
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.centene.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Larry Elam, et al. v. Centene Corporation, et al.

COURT: E.D. Missouri	DOCKET NUMBER: 06-CV-1142
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Catherine D. Perry
DATE FILED: 07/28/2006	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/21/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2006
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Brower Piven (Baltimore) The World Trade Center-Baltimore. 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, (voice) 410.332.0030, (fax) 410.685.1300, info@browerpiven.com Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City) 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 (voice) 405-235-1560, (fax) , wfederman@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 _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 5

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/28/2006
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/17/2006

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Larry Elam, et al. v. Centene Corporation, et al.

COURT: E.D. Missouri	DOCKET NUMBER: 06-CV-1142
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Catherine D. Perry
DATE FILED: 01/17/2007	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/25/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2006
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP (New York) 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212-889-3700, (fax) 212-684-519, info@abbeyspanier.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/17/2007
Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/29/2007
Memorandum and Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 06/29/2007
Notice Of Appeal
Type: Notice of Appeal		Date on the document: 07/27/2007
US District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/6/2008

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Layton Jackson, et al. v. Centene Corporation, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/09/2006
U.S. Court of Appeals Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Larry Elam, et al. v. Michael Neidorff, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/2/2008
Order
Case Name and/or Number: Larry Elam, et al. v. Centene Corporation, et al.
Type: Order		Date on the document: 10/16/2008

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

�