Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/09/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 22, 1999

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2004, on November 8, 2004, the U.S. District Court entered a Final Approval of Settlement. Under the settlement, all claims will be dismissed and the litigation will be concluded in exchange for a payment of $15.25 million, approximately 82% of which will be paid by Ashworth’s insurance carriers. As part of the settlement, Ashworth also agreed to adopt modifications to certain corporate governance policies. Ashworth recorded a pre-tax charge of $3 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2004 related to settlement of this suit.

As reported by the same SEC filing, in January 22, 1999, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (“U.S. District Court”) on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the period between September 4, 1997 and July 15, 1998. The action was subsequently consolidated with two similar suits and plaintiffs filed their Amended and Consolidated Complaint on December 17, 1999. Upon the Company’s motion, the U.S. District Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend on July 18, 2000. On September 18, 2000, plaintiffs served their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”). On November 6, 2000, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which the U.S. District Court granted, in part, and denied, in part. The remaining portions of the Second Amended Complaint alleged that, among other things, during the class period and in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Company’s financial statements, as reported, did not conform to generally accepted accounting principles with respect to revenues

The original complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose the following facts about Ashworth: a) Ashworth's new, redeveloped infrastructure, including its increasing use of offshore factories, was extremely troubled with inadequate quality-control testing and insufficient supervision, which, while generating short-term cost savings, would require dramatically higher costs in future periods to successfully manufacture, supervise and monitor manufacturing in these locations; b) due to problems in matching production with demnad, Ashworth had acucmulated large amounts of excessive inventories of its Basics product line. c) Ashworth's attempts to accelerate the relocation of larger amounts of its manufacturing operations offshore were resulting in significant operational inefficiencies and greatly increased expense and others allegations.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Apparel/Accessories
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ASHW
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. California
DOCKET #: 99-CV-00121
JUDGE: Hon. Thomas J. Whelan
DATE FILED: 01/22/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/04/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/15/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. 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
  3. Olsen Law Firm
    2121 K Street, N.W. Suite 800, Olsen Law Firm, DC 20037
    703.351.5199 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 99-CV-00121
JUDGE: Hon. Thomas J. Whelan
DATE FILED: 09/18/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/04/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/15/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. Klafter & Olsen LLP (Washington)
    1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 200, Klafter & Olsen LLP (Washington), DC 20036
    202.261.3553 202.261.3533 · info@klafterolsen.com
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  4. 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