Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED  
—On or around 08/18/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)
Current/Last Presiding Judge:  
Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise

Filing Date: July 26, 2000

According to the docket, on August 18, 2004, the Court entered the Orders awarding plaintiffs’ counsel's attorney’s fees and reimbursement of expenses pursuant to settlement fund and approving the plan of allocation of the settlement proceeds. The Court further entered the Final Judgment and Order dismissing the action with prejudice and the case was terminated.

On June 4, 2004, a $100 million recovery for shareholders was obtained in the settlement of the securities class action litigation.

The action seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff alleges that defendants knowingly or recklessly disseminated materially false and misleading statements and omissions that misrepresented the success of the merger of Honeywell and Allied Signal, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that the Allied/Honeywell merger was problem-ridden and not yielding operational synergies and millions in cost savings, and that the "new" Honeywell's business was not nearly as strong as represented and did not have nearly as strong prospects as forecast by defendants. Plaintiff further alleges that the misrepresentations and omissions by defendants influenced the views of securities analysts and fostered an unrealistically positive assessment of Honeywell and its business, prospects and operations. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of such misinformation, Honeywell's stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the proposed Class Period. Plaintiff alleges that defendants' materially false and misleading statements, included, among others: On April 13, 2000 defendants represented that, "That Honeywell is well-poised to meet its earnings and revenue commitments for 2000 and beyond," and "[w]e are clearly seeing the benefits of the Merger flowing through [to Honeywell].", On May 1, 2000 defendants represented that Honeywell would achieve EPS growth of at least 20% in 2000, On May 9, 2000 defendants represented that the Merger synergies and savings and Honeywell's EPS growth would accelerate as 2000 unfolded.

Protected Content


Please Log In or Sign Up for a free account to access restricted features of the Clearinghouse website, including the Advanced Search form and the full case pages.

When you sign up, you will have the option to save your search queries performed on the Advanced Search form.