According to the docket posted, on December 16, 1999, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal for the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The The Court awards fees constituting 30% of the settlement (i.e.$4,000,000) interest earned thereon, to plaintiffs' counsel, for services performed in the litigation. The Court further authorizes the reimbursement of expenses incurred, including expert fees, in the aggregate amount of $86,189.12 from settlement cash plus interest on such expenses at the same rate and for the same period as earned on the settlement cash.
As reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the period ended March 31, 1998, on August 30, 1996, two lawsuits were filed by certain persons who seek to represent a class of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock in the April 1996 public offering or in the subsequent after market. In September and November 1996 two additional lawsuits were filed with similar representations. The individual plaintiffs in all four cases allege that they were induced to purchase the Company's stock on the basis of misrepresentations about the Company and its prospects. The complaints assert claims under Section 11, 12(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaints name as the defendants the Company, its Directors and certain of its then existing officers, and the lead underwriters associated with the public offering. By an order dated December 5, 1996, The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia consolidated all four actions. In January 1997 a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the Northern District of Georgia. On March 13, 1997, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On March 30,1998, the Court granted the Company's Joint Motion to Dismiss allowing Plaintiffs leave to reopen this case by filing an amended complaint within Thirty (30) days. On April 29,1998, the Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with the Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that the company's prospectus (for an initial public offering of the company's common stock) contained material false and misleading statements as well as material omissions that rendered the prospectus false and misleading. In particular, the complaint alleges that the company, under the direction and control of certain of its officers and directors, made false statements and failed to correct misstatements regarding the company's compliance with certain regulations and requirements in its Medicare billing. The complaint alleges that the company's lead underwriters, Merrill Lynch, Dean Witter, and Morgan Stanley, are also liable to the proposed class for their role in the public offering of the company's stock using the false and misleading prospectus. The complaint alleges that the false and misleading statements and omissions were part of a scheme by the defendants to facilitate the company's sale of its common stock. After this information was disclosed to the market, the company's stock price allegedly fell approximately 50%. Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Housecall Medical Resources, Inc. provides a range of home health care services and products, including nursing and related care, infusion therapy, hospice care, respiratory therapy and home medical equipment. The company derives approximately 64.5% of its revenues from Medicare sources.