Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/24/2002 (Other)

Filing Date: October 13, 2000

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2002, since October 13, 2000 there have been eight complaints filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and five individual defendants. Lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were subsequently appointed. A consolidated amended complaint captioned The Marsh Group, et al. v. PrimRetail, Inc., et al. dated May 21, 2001 was filed. The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted on November 8, 2001. The plaintiffs appealed the matter to the Fourth Circuit. Briefs were filed and oral arguments were held on June 4, 2002. On September 3, 2002 the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Plaintiffs have agreed not to seek further review of the dismissal.

The original complaint charges Prime Retail and certain of its officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Prime Retail assured its investors throughout the Class Period that it would issue a dividend in its fourth quarter of 1999, even though it knew that its deteriorating operations and debt-laden balance sheet would make issuing a dividend impossible. On January 18, 2000, Prime Retail announced that it would suspend its common dividend for 2000 because of lowered occupancy rates and cash shortage. The value of Prime Retail's securities plummeted by 37% from its prior day close on the news of this announcement.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Real Estate Operations
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PRT
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: D. Maryland
DOCKET #: 00-CV-03080
JUDGE: Hon. J. F. Motz
DATE FILED: 10/13/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/28/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/18/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  2. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Maryland
DOCKET #: 00-CV-03080
JUDGE: Hon. J. F. Motz
DATE FILED: 05/21/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/28/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/18/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran
    1050 30th Street, NW, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, DC 20007
    202.337.8000 202.337.8090 · contact@ftllaw.com
  2. 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 ·
  3. Tydings & Rosenberg LLP
    100 East Pratt Street, Tydings & Rosenberg LLP, MD 21202
    410.752.9700 410.757.5460 · webmaster@tydingslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date