Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/30/2006 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: December 18, 1997

According to the US District Court Civil Docket as of 09/30/2003, on September 30, 2003, the Court issued an Order granting defendant Physicians Resource Group, Inc.'s 46 Motion to Strike, and denying as moot defendant Physicians Resource Group, Inc.'s 46 Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint, granting defendant Emmett E. Moore's 50 Motion to Strike Lead Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, denying as moot defendant Emmett E. Moore's 50 Motion to Dismiss Lead Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. In light of striking lead plaintiffs' amended complaint this action is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

The final Judgment, issued pursuant to the Court's Order, adjudged and decreed that plaintiffs take nothing by their suit against defendants; that all relief requested therein is denied; that this action is hereby dismissed with prejudice; that all relief not expressly granted herein is denied; and that all allowable and reasonable costs are taxed against plaintiffs.

Five more securities class actions were filed against this company. Soon after they were amended and filed in two groups. The first group included the Longman, Peltz, and Hall actions (collectively the 'Longman Action'), which was the first complaint filed. And the second group comprised the Schiller, City of Philadelphia, and Rutherford actions (collectively the 'Schiller Action').

These cases all raise claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the '1934 Act') and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, legal interest and attorneys' fees. The procedural history of these cases is complex because of the number of cases at issue, the theories of liability raised, the number of plaintiffs' counsel involved, and the unique requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The plaintiffs in the Longman Action claim that when Physicians Resource Group (PRG) filed a counterclaim for fraud against EquiMed in an arbitration proceeding in June 1997, PRG knew that the Eyecare Practices it had previously acquired from EquiMed in late 1996 were overvalued and would have to be written-down but that PRG delayed doing so in order to continue to appear to be a fast growing company and an attractive acquisition candidate.

In the original complaint, among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements, and omitted to make other statements they were under a duty to make, regarding PRG's financial condition and the value of medical practices purchased by PRG from EquiMed Inc. and that as a result of these false and misleading statements and omissions, PRG's common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

NOTE: On February 1, 2000, the Company filed for bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the Northern District of Texas.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Real Estate Operations
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PRG
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 97-CV-3102
JUDGE: Hon. Jane J Boyle
DATE FILED: 12/18/1997
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/17/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/19/1997
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  4. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
  5. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 97-CV-3102
JUDGE: Hon. Jane J Boyle
DATE FILED: 03/20/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/15/1995
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/19/1997
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego)
    12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  3. Claxton & Hill
    3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103, Claxton & Hill, TX 75204-2471
    214.969.9099 ·
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  5. Stanley, Mandel & Iola LLP (Dallas)
    3100 Monticello Avenue, Suite 750 , Stanley, Mandel & Iola LLP (Dallas), TX 75205
    214.443.4300 ·
No Document Title Filing Date