Deloitte & Touche LLP : Symbol Technologies, Inc. common stock

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

Deloitte & Touche LLP : Symbol Technologies, Inc. common stock Conclusion: According to the co-lead counsel's web site, on June 14, 2006, D&T agreed to pay $24,000,000 in cash to settle the claims against them. On June 14, 2006, Judge Wexler signed an Order granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and setting a Settlement Fairness Hearing for September 12, 2006 to determine, among other things, whether the proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the class. On September 12, 2006, the Fairness Hearing was held and final approval of the Settlement was granted.

On February 12, 2004, a shareholder lawsuit against Deloitte & Touche LLP (“D&T”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This action was brought on behalf of any and all persons and entities that purchased Symbol Technologies common stock between March 2, 2000, and October 17, 2002 (the “Class Period”). In the Complaint, Lead Plaintiffs alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, Lead Plaintiffs alleged that during the Class Period, D&T, acting as Symbol’s auditor, made materially false statements and/or omissions regarding Symbol’s financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

NOTE: The Action was designated as a “Related Case” with a consolidated class action commenced in March 2002 against Symbol and certain of its officers and directors, captioned In re Symbol Technologies Litigation, Docket No. 02-CV-1383 (LDW), also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the “Symbol Action”). The Symbol Action partially settled (the “Symbol Settlement”) and was granted final approval by the Court on October 14, 2004.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3577
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Peripherals

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Deloitte & Touche LLP
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	SBL
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.symbol.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, et al.

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-00621
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Leonard D. Wexler
DATE FILED: 02/12/2004	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/02/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/17/2002
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA) One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109 (voice) 617.542.8300, (fax) , Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY) 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York, NY, 10019 (voice) 212.554.1400, (fax) 212.554.1444, blbg@blbglaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/12/2004
Notice Of Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing And Motion For Attorney Fees And Reimbursement Of Litigation Expenses
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 06/09/2006
Proof of Claim and Release
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/09/2006
Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/12/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/12/2006

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

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

�