Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 07/21/2000 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: January 27, 1997

According to the complaint, in selling the securities of or membership interests in Theta, defendants engaged in a course of conduct that was designed to and did deceive plaintiff and other members of the Class, concerning (i) the personal background and credentials of defendant Rubel; (ii) the prior performance and historical returns of Theta; (iii) the reporting of monthly rates of return and losses; and (iv) the payment of fees to Messrs. Bell and Rubel in excess of those represented in the offering memorandum. This course of conduct caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase membership interests of Theta. In furtherance of this plan and course of conduct defendants took the actions as set forth herein.

On October 23, 1997, the plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. The motion was granted against defendants Theta Group, L.L.C., and Scott S. Bell. On May 18, 1998, the plaintiff filed a motion for an order preliminarily approving settlement with defendant Scott S. Bell. On May 28, 1998, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, and gave final approval for the partial class action settlement on July 8, 1998.

On May 21, 1999, a settlement was reached plaintiff and remaining defendant Scot Rubel. On February 29, 2000 and April 25, 2000, two Stipulation and Agreements were filed. On April 27, 2000, the Court preliminary approved of settlement, and he court gave final approval to the settlement on July 7, 2000.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol:
Company Market: Privately Traded
Market Status: Privately Held

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. Illinois
DOCKET #: 97-CV-0565
JUDGE: Hon. Arlander Keys
DATE FILED: 01/27/1997
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/01/1995
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/26/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C.
    200 N LaSalle St Ste 2100, Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C., IL 60601
    312.346.3100 ·
  2. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date