Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 07/09/2001 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 11, 1997

According to the docket dated February 06, 2002, the court issued the Order and Final Judgment dated June 29, 2001 approving the terms of the settlement and closing the case.

On September 10, 1998, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On or about November 15, 1999, the court denied the motion to dismiss. According to the firm's 10-Q filing dated May 16, 2001, in March 2001 the Company agreed to the settlement of three class action lawsuits which alleged violations of the federal securities laws during the period from September 19, 1996 through April 21, 1997. This settlement remains subject to court approval. In connection with this settlement the Company has recorded a charge for $1 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2001.

The original securities class action complaint charges the defendants with violations of the federal securities laws (Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Exchange Act of 1933), by among other things, misrepresenting and/or omitting material information concerning APAC's contractual arrangement with United Parcel Service of America, Inc. ("UPS"), thereby bringing APAC common shares to market at artificially inflated prices. In addition, plaintiffs allege that Schwartz, an "insider" and control person of APAC, and his family reaped many millions of dollars by improperly selling shares of APAC common stock at artificially inflated prices while in the possession of materially adverse facts.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: APAC
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 97-CV-09145
JUDGE: Hon. Barbara S. Jones
DATE FILED: 12/11/1997
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/19/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/21/1997
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 97-CV-9145
JUDGE: Hon. Barbara S. Jones
DATE FILED: 06/26/1998
CLASS PERIOD START:
CLASS PERIOD END:
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  2. Schoengold & Sporn PC (New York)
    233 Broadway 39Th Floor, Schoengold & Sporn PC (New York), NY 10279
    212.964.0046 ·
No Document Title Filing Date