The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.

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

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated March 31, 2010, the complaint charges The Hartford and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Hartford is one of the largest investment and insurance companies based in the United States. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading representations regarding the Company’s business and prospects, including its capital position, investment risk and hedging program. Then, on February 5, 2009, after the markets closed, The Hartford was forced to report disastrous fourth quarter and 2008 year-end financial results. And while defendants had repeatedly assured the market throughout the Class Period that the Company’s capital position was sound and could fully support its current credit rating, that same day Moody’s downgraded The Hartford’s long-term senior debt rating and the Company’s P&C and life insurance subsidiaries. As a result of this news, The Hartford’s shares fell from $15.09 on February 5, 2009 to close at $12.68 per share on February 6, 2009.

According to the complaint, defendants were aware of material undisclosed information which contradicted their public statements during the Class Period, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) the Company’s regulatory capital position was weak and deteriorating throughout the Class Period; (b) the Company had built up massive exposure to losses from derivative investments, including credit default swap contracts, way beyond the “corporate bond” risk references included in The Hartford’s quarterly conference calls with analysts; (c) the Company had leveraged its risk significantly throughout the Class Period through a securities lending program in which it invested the cash collateral it received from third-party lenders in extremely risky investments, including residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities; (d) the Company’s hedging program was becoming increasingly expensive to maintain due to high volatility in the equity markets; (e) the Company’s financial results were continuing to deteriorate to a much greater extent than represented due to its exposure to the U.S. real estate market and credit default swap contracts; (f) the Company had failed to maintain adequate internal controls to adequately report losses from investments on a timely basis; (g) the Company was not on track to achieve the 2008 core earnings per share forecasted for and by the Company and continually misrepresented the effect market movements would have on such earnings; and (h) the Company overstated its book value by not accruing for liabilities for repayment of workers compensation insurance premiums consistent with what was actually justified.

On July 15, 2010, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald appointed Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to serve as lead plaintiff. On August 12, 2010, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted the motion to appoint Labaton Sucharow LLP and Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class. On October 8, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. On November 5, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed another Amended Class Action Complaint, amending the class period. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on December 20, 2010.

On September 16, 2011, the action was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed on September 19th.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6331
Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Prop. & Casualty)

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	HIG
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.thehartford.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

City of Monroe Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 10-CV-02835
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald
DATE FILED: 03/31/2010	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/10/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/05/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C. 25800 Northwestern Highway, 1000 Maccabees Center, Southfield, MI, 48075-1000 (voice) 248.746.0700, (fax) 248.746.0700, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/31/2010
Memorandum and Opinion
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 07/15/2010
Order For Approval Of Lead Plaintiff's Selection Of Co-Lead Counsel
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 08/12/2010

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

City of Monroe Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 10-CV-02835
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 11/05/2010	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/28/2008	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/05/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway, New York, NY, 10005 (voice) 212.907.0700, (fax) 212.818.0477, info@labaton.com Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP 205 Linda Drive, Daingerfield, TX, 75638 (voice) 903.645.7333, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/05/2010
Memorandum And Order
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/16/2011
Amended Memorandum And Order
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/19/2011
Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/19/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/19/2011

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

�