Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 01/25/1999 (Other)

Filing Date: August 20, 1997

According to a Press Release dated 4/14/2000, in 1998, the class action cases, Alan Fields v. Dove Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC174659), Global Asset Allocation Consultants, L.L.C. v. Dove Entertainment, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the Central District of California Civil Action No. 97-6253-WDK) and George, et al. v. Dove Entertainment, Inc. et al. (United States District Court for the Central District of California Civil Action No. 97-7482-R) were settled between the parties (the "Class Action Settlement"). Subsequently, the Class Action Settlement was approved by both the federal and state courts. The state court approval became final and non-appealable in the fourth quarter of 1998 and the federal court approval became final and non-appealable in the first quarter of
1999.

According to the Notice of Proposed Settlement of the Class Action dated July 16, 1998, the settlement was for $3,750,000 in cash.

The Complaint charges defendants with violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act in connection with, among other things, their dissemination of materially false and misleading press releases, public statements and other materials concerning Dove's financial results.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Specialty)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DOVE
Company Market: NASDAQ
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 97-CV-06253
JUDGE: Hon. William D. Keller
DATE FILED: 08/20/1997
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/25/1995
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/20/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  2. Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
    100 Park Avenue, Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., NY 10017
    212.907.0800 212.684.6083 ·
  3. Lionel Z. Glancy
    1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 308, Lionel Z. Glancy, CA 90067
    310.201.9150 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date