 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Legg Mason, Inc. Summary: According to an article dated March 19, 2008, a judge has dismissed a class action that alleged Legg Mason Inc. and Citigroup Inc. defrauded investors by omitting details of a secondary public offering following a multibillion-dollar unit swap in 2005. Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said Monday that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim and comply with pleading requirements in the consolidated amended complaint, which he dismissed with prejudice.
On January 12, 2007 all related cases were consolidated and lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed. A consolidated complaint was filed on April 16, 2007 and the defendants moved to dismiss on June 15, 2007.
The original Complaint alleges that on 6/24/05, Legg Mason announced that it would swap its brokerage unit plus $2.1 billion in stock and cash for Citigroup's $435 billion money-management division and would buy hedge fund firm The Permal Group. Defendants stated the acquisition would be immediately accretive to earnings, have a positive effect on profitability and leave Legg Mason with a "Conservative Balance Sheet". Throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose the following: (i) Legg Mason was unable to successfully integrate Citigroup's worldwide asset management business ("CAM") assets because of a lack of compatible corporate infrastructures; (ii) Citigroup had undisclosed pre-existing sales expenses to third-party brokers; (iii) post-acquisition cost "savings" were unattainable; (iv) Citigroup customers had withdrawn billions of dollars of assets; and (v) the Company's ability to achieve earnings growth was severely strained, due to deteriorating investment returns on Bill Miller's $18.7 billion Legg Mason Value Trust, the Company's flagship equity fund which was having its worse year since 1990.
The complaint further alleges that on or around July 25, 2006 the Company disclosed that the CAM acquisition costs were spiraling and customers were withdrawing funds, putting further pressure on revenues and margins and causing Legg Mason to miss the earnings targets for 1Q 07. On this news, stock price fell below $85 per share.
NOTE: The class action complaint was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Legg Mason, Inc. during the Class Period. Also included are those who acquired shares in a secondary offering on 3/9/06 or through the acquisitions of Permal or Worldwide Asset Management.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6211
Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Legg Mason, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | LM |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.leggmason.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Robert L. Garber, et al. v. Legg Mason, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 10/16/2006 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 10/16/2006 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: Legg Mason, Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Order Consolidated The Actions, Appointing Lead Plaintiff And Approving Selection Of Lead Plaintiff | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 1/12/2007 | ||
| Consolidated Amended Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 4/16/2007 | ||
| Opinion | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 3/17/2008 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 03/17/2008 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Harthia Bockmon, et al. v. Legg Mason, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 10/24/2006 | ||
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