Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 02/22/2002 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 13, 1998

According to the docket, on November 8, 2001, the Court entered the Order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement as set in the Stipulation of Settlement. The Settlement Fairness Hearing was scheduled for February 15, 2002. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court determined the action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the FRCP. The proposed settlement of the action pursuant to the stipulation was approved and all claims in the second amended complaint against defendants were dismissed with prejudice in their entirety. Plaintiffs' counsel was awarded attorneys fees in the amount of $1,000,000.00 representing 33% of the settlement fund, and to reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $136,297.87. Lead plaintiff William Mitchell was awarded reimbursement of lost wages in the amount of $380.00, payable from the settlement fund.
The Order and Final Judgment was signed by U.S District Judge Louis L. Stanton and the case was closed.

In a press release dated September 29, 2000, a federal judge in Manhattan denied a motion by two TIG Holdings Inc. officers to dismiss a class-action securities fraud suit against them after finding sufficient evidence that they knew the company's financial statements were false and misleading. The first amended complaint was dismissed for insufficient particularity in pleading fraud and for failure to state a claim. However, the investors were granted leave to replead. In the instant decision, Judge Louis Stanton denied the officers' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

The original complaint alleges that TIG Holdings and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements concerning the adequacy of the company's underwriting standards and loss reserves, and that three of its officers and directors sold shares at prices that were artificially nflated as a result of the alleged misrepresentations.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Prop. & Casualty)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TIG
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 98-CV-01068
JUDGE: Hon. Thomas P. Griesa
DATE FILED: 02/13/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/21/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/30/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2500, Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco), CA 94105
    415.538.3725 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 98-CV-01068
JUDGE: Hon. Thomas P. Griesa
DATE FILED: 12/06/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/21/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/30/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 · info@abbeygardy.com
No Document Title Filing Date