Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/23/2002 (Other)

Filing Date: June 22, 1999

According to the docket dated September 3, 2002, on November 7, 2000, the Court entered the Memorandum, Opinion, and Order of U.S. District Judge Charles R. Simpson III granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action with prejudice and stating that the plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The plaintiff soon after filed a Notice of Appeal, and on August 23, 2002, the Court entered the Mandate from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the District Court.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about Humana's results of operations and financial condition. The complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading press releases and financial statements during the Class Period. In particular, plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to disclose, among other things, the impact of known and materially adverse advents concerning the renegotiation of a major contract and significantly increased medical costs. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and material omissions, the price of Humana's stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Accident & Health)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HUM
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: W.D. Kentucky
DOCKET #: 99-CV-00398
JUDGE: Hon. Charles R. Simpson III
DATE FILED: 06/22/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/09/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/08/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Wechsler, Harwood, Halebian & Feffer, LLP
    488 Madison Avenue, Wechsler, Harwood, Halebian & Feffer, LLP, NY
    212.935.7400 10022 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: W.D. Kentucky
DOCKET #: 99-CV-00398
JUDGE: Hon. Charles R. Simpson III
DATE FILED: 02/28/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/09/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/08/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Parry, Deering, Futscher & Sparks
    128 E Second Street, Parry, Deering, Futscher & Sparks, KY 41012-0472
    859.392.8661 ·
  2. Wechsler, Harwood, Halebian & Feffer, LLP
    488 Madison Avenue, Wechsler, Harwood, Halebian & Feffer, LLP, NY
    212.935.7400 10022 ·
  3. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
    The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), NY 10126
    212.682.3025 212.682.3010 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date